One Big, Ugly, & Deadly Bill (Reverand William Barber)

 

Watch now   One Big, Ugly, & Deadly Bill We must sharpen our language & clarify what is at stake now William J. Barber, II May 21   READ IN APP   This morning I joined Amy Goodman on Democracy Now to talk about the bill that House Republican leadership worked through the night to push toward a vote on the floor. The more Americans learn about what’s in this bill, the more outrage there will be that House members are willing to vote for cuts that will devastate communities so their billionaire donors can have a massive tax break. (That’s why they’re meeting to talk about the details in the middle of the night.) We must sharpen our language to make clear what’s at stake in this one big, ugly, and death-dealing bill. And we must prepare ourselves for moral action. We are glad to announce that Indivisible, the national organization behind “No Kings Day” on June 14th, has joined our Moral Monday partners to mobilize a mass action on June 2 outside of the US Capitol. We invite you to register here if you can join us for Moral Monday on June 2. To learn more, plan to join me and Indivisible co-founder Ezra Levin for a Substack Live on Tuesday, May 27, at 12pm ET. I’m also looking forward to a conversation here on Substack next week with Robert Reich. We will be live Wednesday, May 28, at 5:30pm ET/2:30pm PT. To join live conversations with us on Our Moral Moment, you just need to download the Substack app, subscribe for free, and turn out notifications. You’ll get a notice on your phone that we are going live.

How the New Cryptocurrency Bill Could Accelerate a US Financial Collapse

The United States Congress is on the brink of passing a sweeping cryptocurrency bill that, under the guise of fostering innovation, may be paving the way for the next financial crisis. While crypto lobbyists and venture capitalists tout the legislation as a long-overdue framework for digital assets, critics warn that the bill’s deregulatory nature undermines consumer protections, enables fraud, and weakens the federal government’s ability to prevent a systemic collapse.

The proposed legislation—championed by a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers with significant donations from the crypto industry—shifts regulatory authority from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to the more industry-friendly Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). This move effectively reclassifies most cryptocurrencies as commodities rather than securities, shielding them from stringent disclosure and investor protection requirements.

The Bill’s Key Provisions: A Gift to Speculators

Among the most controversial elements of the bill:

• Loosening of Know-Your-Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) safeguards for certain crypto entities;

• Legalization of certain decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms, many of which operate without clear accountability;

• Minimal oversight of stablecoins, despite their systemic risks as shown in the 2022 TerraUSD collapse;

• Tax exemptions for certain crypto gains, incentivizing speculative investment.

Supporters argue these measures will solidify America’s dominance in financial innovation. But the bill’s leniency raises echoes of past financial debacles—from the dot-com bubble to the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis—where unregulated markets spiraled out of control.

A House Built on Sand

Cryptocurrency markets have already proven themselves to be volatile, largely unbacked, and susceptible to manipulation. The 2022 crash wiped out over $2 trillion in market value and exposed the fragility of companies like FTX, Celsius, and Voyager Digital—each of which left everyday investors devastated while insiders cashed out early.

Now, by codifying a legal gray zone as a financial free-for-all, the US government may be inviting a larger catastrophe. With trillions of dollars potentially flowing into underregulated crypto assets, a major crash could trigger a chain reaction through the broader financial system, especially as more institutional players and retirement funds are drawn into the space under the new law.

An Economy at Risk

The consequences of a crypto-induced financial collapse could be profound:

• Working families—already crushed by student debt, housing inflation, and stagnant wages—may be lured into speculative investments out of desperation, only to lose their savings in the next collapse.

• University endowments and public pension systems—some of which have already dabbled in crypto—could suffer catastrophic losses, compounding the higher education affordability crisis.

• State and federal regulators, stripped of the tools needed to intervene effectively, will be unable to respond to crises in real-time, much as they were in the early days of the 2008 crash.

Moreover, this deregulatory trend sets a dangerous precedent: one in which the government abdicates its responsibility to protect the public in favor of appeasing Silicon Valley and Wall Street interests.

The Educated Underclass Will Pay the Price

As financial elites speculate with impunity, the economic fallout will disproportionately affect young people, especially recent college graduates burdened with debt and lacking stable employment. Many of these individuals are already being pushed into gig work, underemployment, or unpaid labor under the guise of "internship experience." A crypto-fueled crash could devastate whatever remaining economic foothold they have.

As the Higher Education Inquirer has chronicled, the rise of the educated underclass is not merely a generational shift—it is a structural consequence of policies that prioritize capital over community, markets over morals, and deregulation over democratic control. This bill is just the latest example.

A Crisis of Governance

Far from being a step forward, the new cryptocurrency bill reflects a larger crisis in American governance. It prioritizes short-term gains and corporate lobbying over long-term stability and social equity. By turning over the keys of financial regulation to the very industries that have proven incapable of self-regulation, the US may be steering itself into another devastating collapse.

The Higher Education Inquirer urges lawmakers, journalists, educators, and citizens to scrutinize this legislation with the urgency it deserves. A failure to act could turn today’s crypto dreams into tomorrow’s financial nightmare—one that once again leaves the working class holding the bag.

---

For further investigative reporting on the intersection of finance, higher education, and social equity, follow the Higher Education Inquirer.

Glean Learner Impact Report 2025: Learners at Risk of Failing Saw GPAs Increase 79% When Using a Supportive Note Taking and Study Tool

CLEARWATER, FLA, May 20, 2025— Glean, a provider of a supporting note taking and study tool that significantly improves student success, today announced the release of its The Learner Impact Report 2025. The study analyzed the impact of Glean’s supporting note taking and study tool on 600 higher education learners across the U.S. during the fall 2024 and winter 2025 semesters. The study found that students at risk of failing saw their GPA increase an average of 79% after using Glean. Moreover, Glean helped 45% of all students at community, public and private colleges improve their GPA. 

Glean employs learning science to create a digital note taking tool that captures all information from an in-person or online class on any device. The tool then encourages students to organize and refine their notes for studying. Glean’s Quiz Me feature uses AI to autogenerate questions solely from class material, not the wider web, to test students’ knowledge and identify gaps. 

Major findings from the report show that using research-based, supportive note taking and study tools benefits students in several ways:

GPA gains

At-risk students with an initial GPA of less than 2.0 saw the greatest benefit — their GPA increased by an average of 1.27 points. But students overall saw significant benefits, with their GPA growing on average by 0.15 points after taking notes and studying with Glean’s assistance.

Higher student confidence and wellbeing

More than three-quarters (76%) of all students felt more confident in their note taking skills, and confidence gains were highest among first-generation, ESL and adult undergraduates. Moreover, 78% said using these tools made studying less stressful and 76% said exam preparation was easier.

“New majority learners” benefited even more than traditional students

Non-traditional learners now constitute the majority in higher education: 40.2% of students in the U.S. are over the age of 22, and 69.3% work while studying. Part-time learners make up 39.2% of the student population, and the number of neurodiverse learners has increased by more than 2.5 times since 2004.

Students who identify as parents saw the highest GPA increase of new majority learners at 11.4%, more than double the percentage increase across all learners. They also ended the semester with the highest average GPA at 3.58. Students over the age of 25 saw the next biggest increase at 9%. 

Additionally, these groups saw their confidence in studying effectively increase by at least 20%, and almost 9 in 10 (88%) working students said working with these learning tools enabled them to enjoy their courses more.

Community college students saw the biggest GPA increase

Students at community colleges saw their GPAs increase from 2.95 to 3.32, on average, a 12% increase. Private college students saw gains from 3.3 to 3.43 (4% increase), while four-year public college students saw their GPAs grow from 3.36 to 3.48 (3.5% increase).

“More than ever, higher education is facing intense pressure to increase student retention and graduation rates,” said Dave Tucker, Founder and co-CEO, at Glean. “This report shows that Glean’s note taking and study tool significantly increases student achievement while also boosting their confidence and enjoyment. And while all students saw benefits, at-risk and New Majority students showed the greatest gains. With the right digital tools, students not only raise their GPA, but they also transform their learning experience, laying the foundation for future academic success.”

To read The Learner Impact Report 2025, visit https://glean.co/resources/learner-impact-report. 

About Glean

Glean’s mission is to unlock better learning for everyone, with courses that develop learning skills and tools that put knowledge into action. Glean’s products are beautifully simple, meaningfully structured, and effortlessly connected. Trusted by more than 800 institutions globally, Glean has assisted learners in over 1.6 million classes, empowering 91% of learners using Glean’s tools to improve and maintain their grades while reducing stress and boosting confidence. Especially as non-traditional students become the New Majority Learner, Glean helps institutions increase enrollment and grow graduation rates.

For more information on Glean, visit https://glean.co/. 

UK's College Meltdown

The UK higher education sector is teetering on the edge of a financial precipice, with a record number of institutions now operating at a loss. A recent analysis by The Telegraph found that 61 of 143 universities – roughly 43 percent of the sector – reported deficits in the 2023-24 academic year, marking the highest number ever recorded.

This fiscal freefall has provoked urgent calls from policy experts and university leaders for the UK government to reconsider its longstanding refusal to bail out struggling institutions. Critics warn that continued inaction could result in the collapse of one or more universities, with dire consequences for regional economies, local employment, and the UK’s global reputation in higher education.

Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI), described the current path as “100 percent not sustainable.” He pointed out that many institutions have now run deficits for multiple consecutive years and noted that the situation has only deteriorated further since the reporting period, as inflation continues to erode tuition fee values and new taxes such as the National Insurance hike place added burdens on institutional budgets.

Among the most vulnerable are smaller, specialized universities such as Bishop Grosseteste University in Lincoln, which reported a staggering 19 percent deficit relative to income. Five institutions – Bishop Grosseteste, Cranfield University, the Guildhall School of Music and Drama, Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), and the University of Reading – have reported losses for six consecutive years.

While some institutions are attempting to manage the crisis through internal restructuring and tapping into financial reserves, the scale of the challenge appears overwhelming. In 2023-24, UK universities laid off a record 10,223 staff across 108 institutions, with £210 million paid out in severance—nearly double the previous year. Notable cuts included Oxford University Press (656 staff) and the University of Central Lancashire (264 staff).

The underlying causes of the crisis are complex but familiar: flatlined domestic tuition fees, sharp declines in international student numbers, and research funding that consistently fails to cover costs. While the government has announced plans to index tuition fees to inflation beginning next year—a first since 2017—Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has made it clear that universities should not count on taxpayer-funded bailouts.

That stance has drawn criticism from both sides of the political aisle. Helen Hayes, Labour MP and chair of the Education Select Committee, warned that institutional bankruptcies would jeopardize not only education but also the social and economic fabric of entire communities. “Universities are often anchor institutions,” she said, “and their collapse could devastate local economies and diminish the UK’s international standing.”

Meanwhile, Universities UK CEO Vivienne Stern emphasized the broader impact of the crisis. “Falling per-student funding, visa changes, and the failure of research grants to cover costs are creating huge pressures across the UK. Our universities are a national asset, contributing over a quarter of a trillion pounds to the economy annually. We need them firing on all cylinders.”

Despite hopes that a Labour government might bring a more sympathetic approach, some university leaders are increasingly disillusioned. Nick Hillman noted that recent Labour proposals have echoed those of the previous Conservative administration, including restrictions on student visas. “There’s an even greater sense of demoralization,” he said. “It feels like the flames are getting closer.”

With staff morale at a historic low and financial pressures mounting, many institutions are making hard choices. Some, like Bishop Grosseteste and Coventry University, are investing in long-term restructuring despite short-term losses. Others, like the University of Reading and SRUC, are leaning on reserves and making strategic investments, hoping to weather the storm without compromising on quality.

But time may be running out. Without a comprehensive and sustainable funding solution from the government, the UK higher education sector could be heading for a reckoning that transforms its landscape for decades to come.

Will policymakers step in before institutions begin to fall—or will market forces be allowed to determine the future of British higher education?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Degrees of Discontent: Credentialism, Inflation, and the Global Education Crisis

In an era defined by rapid technological change, globalization, and economic precarity, the promise of higher education as a reliable path to social mobility is being questioned around the world. At the heart of this reckoning are two interrelated forces: credentialism and credential inflation. Together, they have helped fuel a crisis of discontent that spans continents, demographics, and generations.

The Age of Credentialism

Credentialism refers to the increasing reliance on educational qualifications—often formal degrees or certificates—as a measure of skill, value, and worth in the labor market. What was once a gateway to opportunity has, for many, become a gatekeeper.

In countries as diverse as the United States, Nigeria, South Korea, and Brazil, employers increasingly demand college degrees for jobs that previously required only a high school diploma or no formal education at all. These “degree requirements” often serve more as filters than as real indicators of competence. In the U.S., for example, nearly two-thirds of new jobs require a college degree, yet only around 38% of the adult population holds one. This creates a built-in exclusionary mechanism that hits working-class, first-generation, and minority populations hardest.

Credential Inflation: The Diminishing Value of Degrees

As more people earn degrees in hopes of improving their employment prospects, the relative value of those credentials declines—a phenomenon known as credential inflation. Where a bachelor’s degree once opened doors to managerial or professional roles, it now often leads to underemployment or precarious gig work. In response, students seek advanced degrees, fueling a “credential arms race” with diminishing returns.

In India and China, massive expansions of higher education have led to millions of graduates chasing a finite number of white-collar jobs. In places like Egypt, university graduates have higher unemployment rates than those with only a secondary education. In South Korea, a hyper-competitive education culture pushes students through years of tutoring and testing, only to graduate into a job market with limited high-status roles.

Tragedy in Tunisia: The Human Cost of Unemployment

Few stories illustrate the devastating impact of credentialism and mass youth unemployment more than that of Mohammed Bouazizi, a 26-year-old Tunisian university graduate whose life and death sparked a revolution.

Unable to find formal employment, Bouazizi resorted to selling fruit and vegetables illegally in the town of Sidi Bouzid. In December 2010, after police confiscated his produce for lacking a permit, he set himself on fire in front of a local government building in a final act of desperation.

Bouazizi succumbed to his injuries weeks later, but not before igniting a firestorm of protests across Tunisia. His self-immolation became the catalyst for mass demonstrations against economic injustice, corruption, and authoritarianism—culminating in the Tunisian Revolution and inspiring uprisings throughout the Arab world.

At his funeral, an estimated 5,000 mourners marched, chanting: “Farewell, Mohammed, we will avenge you.” Bouazizi’s uncle said, “Mohammed gave his life to draw attention to his condition and that of his brothers.”

His act was not just a protest against police abuse, but a powerful indictment of a system that had produced thousands of educated but unemployed young people, whose degrees had become symbols of broken promises.

Global Discontent and Backlash

This dynamic of broken promises and rising discontent is global. In China, the “lying flat” movement reflects a rejection of endless striving in a system that offers diminishing returns on educational achievement. In South Korea, the “N-po” generation has opted out of traditional life goals, seeing little reward for their academic sacrifices.

In the U.S., distrust in higher education is mounting, with many questioning whether the cost of a degree is worth it. At the same time, a growing number of companies are dropping degree requirements altogether in favor of skills-based hiring.

Yet these moves often come too late for millions already trapped in a debt-fueled system, forced to chase credentials just to qualify for basic employment.

The Future of Work, the Future of Education

As automation and AI disrupt industries, the link between formal education and stable employment continues to fray. Policymakers call for "lifelong learning" and “upskilling,” but these strategies often place the burden back on workers without addressing the deeper failures of economic and educational systems.

To move forward, we must consider:

• Decoupling jobs from unnecessary credential requirements

• Investing in vocational and technical education with real career pathways

• Recognizing nontraditional forms of knowledge and skill

• Reframing education as a public good, not a consumer transaction

Reclaiming the Meaning of Education

Mohammed Bouazizi's story is a tragic reminder that the crisis of credentialism is not theoretical—it’s lived, felt, and fought over in the streets. Around the world, millions of young people feel abandoned by systems that promised opportunity but delivered anxiety, debt, and instability.

Unless global societies reimagine the relationship between education, work, and human dignity, the "degrees of discontent" will only continue to deepen. And as Bouazizi’s legacy shows, discontent—when ignored—can become revolutionary.

---

Sources and References

• BBC News. “Tunisia suicide protester Mohammed Bouazizi dies.” January 5, 2011. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-12120228

• Pew Research Center. “Public Trust in Higher Education is Eroding.” August 2023.

• Brown, Phillip. The Global Auction: The Broken Promises of Education, Jobs, and Incomes. Oxford University Press, 2011.

• Marginson, Simon. “The Worldwide Trend to High Participation Higher Education: Dynamics of Social Stratification in Inclusive Systems.” Higher Education, 2016.

• The World Bank. “Education and the Labor Market.”

• The Guardian. “Lying Flat: China's Youth Protest Culture Grows.” June 2021.

• Korea Herald. “'N-po Generation' Gives Up on Marriage, Children, and More.” October 2022.

The Higher Education Racket

 "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and turns into a racket." Eric Hoffer

American higher education, once a ladder to opportunity, has become a vast machine of wealth extraction. Debt burdens students for decades. Professors and campus workers are trapped in precarious jobs. Entire communities are pushed out by campus expansions. And a select few elite universities sit atop fortunes that rival hedge funds—all while claiming tax-exempt status and public goodwill.

This is the higher education racket: a sector that has turned away from its public mission and now operates with the logic of capital accumulation, enabled by deregulation, political influence, and privatization.

---

From Movement to Market: Postwar Expansion and Privatization

The 1944 G.I. Bill launched a golden age of public higher education, providing veterans access to tuition-free college and transforming American society. Enrollment surged, inequality shrank, and community colleges became lifelines for working-class students. Colleges were seen as civic institutions, essential to democratic life.

That vision began to erode in the 1980s, as neoliberal policymakers slashed state funding, forcing institutions to raise tuition, court corporate donors, and cut labor costs. By 2020, public universities received less than half the state funding (per student) they did in 1980, adjusted for inflation (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities).

---

Trump Administration: Deregulating the Racket

Under Donald Trump, the Department of Education, led by billionaire Betsy DeVos, launched an all-out campaign to roll back protections for students and favor the worst actors in higher ed:

• Gutted Borrower Defense rules, making it harder for defrauded students to cancel loans.

• Eliminated the Gainful Employment rule, allowing for-profit colleges to peddle useless degrees.

• Weakened accreditors' oversight, enabling bad schools to access federal aid with little accountability.

• Backed anti-union efforts, including trying to strip grad students at private universities of their employee status.

This deregulatory spree enriched predatory schools, student loan servicers, and debt collectors—while stripping students and workers of protections.

---

The Academic Underclass

While university presidents earn seven-figure salaries, and campuses build luxury dorms and biotech labs, the people doing the teaching are increasingly disposable. More than 70% of college faculty now work off the tenure track, many as adjuncts earning below minimum wage on a per-course basis (AAUP).

Campus workers—grad students, maintenance staff, food service employees—are organizing for better wages and benefits, but often face union-busting tactics. From Columbia to the University of California, administrators stall negotiations and outsource labor to avoid union contracts (The Guardian, 2022).

---

Universities as Urban Developers

Historian Davarian Baldwin has documented how universities function as engines of gentrification in cities like New Haven, Chicago, and Philadelphia. In In the Shadow of the Ivory Tower, Baldwin argues that universities have become "shadow governments", gobbling up real estate, policing their neighborhoods, and reshaping urban economies—all without democratic accountability.

These “anchor institutions” claim to uplift communities, but their expansion often displaces low-income Black and brown residents, raises housing costs, and erodes the local tax base—since universities are typically exempt from property taxes.

“Higher education is not just about learning anymore. It’s about real estate, policing, health care, and urban planning—all under the control of tax-exempt institutions.” —Davarian Baldwin

---

Endowment Empires

Nowhere is the inequality of U.S. higher education more glaring than in university endowments. Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Princeton each have endowments exceeding $30 billion, managed like hedge funds with investments in private equity, real estate, and offshore accounts (NACUBO 2023 Endowment Study).

Despite their wealth:

• These universities often provide limited financial aid to working-class students.

• They pay no federal taxes on endowment income under $500,000 per student.

• They resist efforts to contribute to municipal budgets, even as they consume city resources.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many elite institutions furloughed workers and froze wages—despite posting strong investment returns and sitting on endowments worth more than the GDP of some nations.

Critics argue that these funds should be tapped for student debt relief, housing support, or public education reinvestment—not hoarded like private wealth.

---

The Price of the Racket

The numbers are staggering:

• $1.7 trillion in student debt

• Tens of thousands of adjuncts living in poverty

• Campus police forces more militarized than local law enforcement

• Communities displaced by campus-led gentrification

• Universities with endowments larger than some countries' national budgets

The higher education racket isn’t just an economic problem. It’s a betrayal of public trust.

---

Reclaiming the Public Good

If higher education is to serve the people—not private interests—structural reforms are necessary:

• Cancel student debt and offer tuition-free public college

• Mandate living wages and fair contracts for all campus workers

• Tax large endowments and require community reinvestment

• Reinstate regulations to hold predatory institutions accountable

Higher education once expanded opportunity. It can again—but only if we dismantle the racket.

---

Sources:

• Baldwin, Davarian L. In the Shadow of the Ivory Tower (Bold Type Books, 2021)

• AAUP – Contingent Faculty Data

• NACUBO – 2023 Endowment Study

• The Guardian – University Union-Busting

• NPR – DeVos Deregulation

• Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – State Funding Cuts

• College Board – Trends in Tuition

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Borrower Defense to Loan Repayment Universal Forms

A Notice by the Education Department on 05/19/2025

Department of Education[Docket No.: ED-2025-SCC-0002]

AGENCY:

Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

ACTION:

Notice.

SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a revision of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).

DATES:

Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 18, 2025.

ADDRESSES:

Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice. Click on this link www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAMain to access the site. Find this information collection request (ICR) by selecting “Department of Education” under “Currently Under Review,” then check the “Only Show ICR for Public Comment” checkbox. Reginfo.gov provides two links to view documents related to this information collection request. Information collection forms and instructions may be found by clicking on the “View Information Collection (IC) List” link. Supporting statements and other supporting documentation may be found by clicking on the “View Supporting Statement and Other Documents” link.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Carolyn Rose, 202-453-5967.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Borrower Defense to Loan Repayment Universal Forms.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0163.

Type of Review: A revision of a currently approved ICR.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals and Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 83,750.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 217,750.

Abstract: On April 4, 2024 the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit granted a preliminary injunction against 34 CFR 685.400 et seq. (“2023 Regulation”) enjoining the rule and postponing the effective date of the regular pending final judgment in the case. The current Borrower Defense to Repayment application and related Request for Reconsideration are drafted to conform to the enjoined provisions of the 2023 Regulation. This request is to revise the currently approved information collection 1845-0163 to comply with the regulatory requirements of the borrower defense regulations that are still in effect, 34 CFR 685.206(e) (“2020 Regulation”), 34 CFR 685.222 (“2016 Regulation”), and 34 CFR 685.206(c) (“1995 Regulation”) (together, the “current regulations”). These regulatory requirements are distinct from the 2023 Regulation's provisions. The revision is part of contingency planning in case the 2023 Regulation is permanently struck down. The Department of Education (“the Department”) is attaching an updated Borrower Defense Application and application for Request for Reconsideration. The forms will be available in paper and electronic forms on studentaid.gov and will provide borrowers with an easily accessible and clear method to provide the information necessary for the Department to review and process claim applications. Also, under the current regulations, the Department will no longer require a group application nor group reconsideration application.


Dated: May 13, 2025.

Brian Fu,

Program and Management Analyst, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.


[FR Doc. 2025-08857 Filed 5-16-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
Published Document: 2025-08857 (90 FR 21296)

Trump vs academia as of May 14 2025 (Bryan Alexander)

 

A Warning to Colorado State University: Proceed with Caution on Ambow’s HybriU Platform

Colorado State University (CSU), a respected public institution with a strong reputation in research and innovation, is reportedly considering a contract with Ambow Education Holding Ltd. to implement its “HybriU” platform, a hybrid learning technology promising to blend in-person and online education. On the surface, such a partnership might appear to align with CSU’s goals of expanding digital learning and staying competitive in the evolving higher education landscape. But a deeper look reveals serious concerns that warrant public scrutiny and administrative caution.

Ambow’s Controversial Background

Ambow Education, though now marketing itself as a U.S.-based edtech company, has deep and lingering connections to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Founded in China and once listed on the New York Stock Exchange before being delisted in 2014 due to accounting irregularities and shareholder lawsuits, Ambow has struggled to shake off its past. Despite reincorporating in the Cayman Islands and operating out of a U.S. office, Ambow continues to raise red flags for investors and watchdogs alike.

According to public filings and investigative reports, key members of Ambow’s leadership maintain ties to Chinese state-affiliated organizations. Moreover, questions have emerged around data security, educational quality, and transparency in the firm’s current operations—especially through its HybriU platform.

Potential Risks to CSU and Its Stakeholders

1. National Security and Data Privacy: Given Ambow’s ties to China and the ongoing concerns about intellectual property theft and surveillance, CSU may be exposing sensitive institutional and student data to foreign actors. Universities are high-value targets for cyber-espionage, particularly those with defense-related research contracts. Even the perception of a compromised platform could damage CSU’s credibility and funding.

2. Regulatory and Reputational Risk: The U.S. Department of Education and other federal agencies have heightened scrutiny of foreign influence in American higher education, especially from China. Entering into a formal relationship with a company like Ambow could place CSU in the crosshairs of federal investigators, jeopardizing federal grants and inviting political backlash.

3. Academic Integrity and Pedagogical Standards: The HybriU platform has yet to demonstrate proven results at scale in U.S. higher education. Partnering with a firm that has not established a strong record of academic excellence or technological reliability could compromise the learning experience for CSU students, particularly in a time when online education still faces skepticism.

4. Precedents and Red Flags: Other universities and investors have backed away from Ambow in the past. Its prior delisting, financial opacity, and ownership structure should be viewed as warning signs. If CSU moves forward with this partnership, it may find itself entangled in legal or financial complications that were avoidable with proper due diligence.

A Call for Transparency and Accountability

The Higher Education Inquirer urges CSU’s Board of Governors, faculty leadership, and the broader CSU community to fully vet Ambow before committing to any partnership. This includes:

• Demanding full disclosure of Ambow’s ownership, governance, and data-handling practices.

• Consulting with cybersecurity experts and federal authorities about the risks of foreign influence.

• Engaging students, faculty, and IT professionals in a transparent evaluation process.

• Exploring domestic, more secure edtech alternatives that align with CSU’s values and strategic vision.

Public Warning

At a time when public trust in higher education is under strain and geopolitical tensions continue to rise, it is imperative for public institutions like Colorado State University to make decisions that are not only cost-effective but ethically and strategically sound. Partnering with a company like Ambow, without thorough investigation and community input, could pose unacceptable risks.

The CSU community—and the taxpayers of Colorado—deserve better than a gamble on a platform with questionable affiliations. We urge CSU to reconsider.

The Watchdogs of Higher Education: Journalists Covering the College Meltdown

In an era of propaganda, PR masquerading as reporting, and shrinking newsroom budgets, a small cohort of journalists continues to ask the difficult questions about U.S. higher education. These writers are the watchdogs, skeptics, and truth-tellers who probe the system's contradictions—exposing corruption, inequality, and the commodification of learning.

While many mainstream outlets have reduced their education desks or opted for click-friendly content, these journalists persist in a more thankless task: investigating the deeper structures that shape college access, affordability, and legitimacy. Their work is essential in this Digital Dark Age, where universities are marketed like tech products and student debt chains millions to futures they did not choose.

---

Current Watchdogs

• Josh Moody (Inside Higher Ed)
  Steady and detail-oriented, Moody explores enrollment cliffs, closures, and the survival of regional public colleges.

• Natalie Schwartz (Higher Ed Dive)
  A sharp analyst of the robocollege sector, Schwartz highlights OPM contracts, predatory recruitment, and accountability gaps.

• Michael Vasquez (The Chronicle)
  Known for hard-hitting investigations into for-profit schemes and enrollment deceptions.

• Stephanie Saul (The New York Times)
  Tackles elite admissions, racial bias, and the mechanisms of legacy advantage.

• Chris Quintana (USA Today)
  Examines the hidden costs of student debt, accreditation breakdowns, and federal oversight failure.

• Derek Newton (Forbes)
  Unflinching in his critiques of online education scams, weak accreditation, and credential inflation.

• David Halperin (Republic Report)
  Legal-minded and relentless, Halperin holds the Department of Education and the for-profit lobby to account.

• Jon Marcus (Hechinger Report / NPR / The Atlantic)
  A veteran storyteller who humanizes systemic crises—affordability, public disinvestment, and policy drift.

• Rick Seltzer (Chronicle of Higher Education)
  A seasoned reporter, Seltzer has focused on the intersection of state and federal policy, accreditation issues, and the financialization of higher education. His investigative pieces often highlight how policy shifts impact institutions serving the most vulnerable students, particularly in the community college sector. Seltzer’s ability to distill complex policy changes into accessible reporting has made him an essential voice in higher ed journalism.

---

Those Who’ve Left the Beat (But Not Forgotten)

• Eric Kelderman (formerly The Chronicle of Higher Education)
  Kelderman offered deeply researched policy analysis and was one of the few who bridged the world of federal education policy and on-the-ground campus effects. His departure leaves a vacuum in longform institutional memory.

• Katherine Mangan (formerly The Chronicle)
  Known for profiling marginalized students and faculty, Mangan brought empathy and nuance to her reporting. Her stories exposed how abstract policies hit real people—and her absence is deeply felt.

• Jesse Singal (formerly The Chronicle / NY Mag)
  Though now better known for controversial takes in broader cultural debates, Singal once wrote incisively about the psychology of higher ed policy and the unproven assumptions behind new academic models.

• Paul Fain (formerly Inside Higher Ed)
  A go-to source for OPMs and workforce ed, Fain had a unique grasp of the tension between labor markets and academic missions. He now writes the The Job newsletter for Work Shift, with a narrower focus.

• Kelly Field (formerly The Chronicle / freelance)
  Field’s reporting on federal financial aid and for-profit lobbying was some of the most thorough in the industry. Her exit reflects a broader trend: that deeply informed journalists are often priced or pushed out.

• Goldie Blumenstyk (semi-retired, The Chronicle)
  A longtime chronicler of innovation narratives and public-private partnerships, Blumenstyk now writes occasionally but is no longer on the frontlines. Her absence from regular coverage marks the end of an era.

---

Why This Matters

Many of these journalists left not because they lost interest—but because media economics, editorial shifts, or burnout drove them out. The result? Fewer people holding institutions accountable. Fewer watchdogs sniffing out robocollege fraud. Fewer investigations into how DEI is dismantled under political pressure. Less public understanding of how tens of millions became student loan serfs.

In their absence, we see the rise of sponsored content, consultant-driven “thought leadership,” and university propaganda dressed as reporting.

At The Higher Education Inquirer, we believe journalism is not just about reporting the news—it’s about building public memory and resisting amnesia. That’s what these current and former reporters have done. And that’s why we honor both those still in the trenches and those who left with their integrity intact.

If this is truly the Digital Dark Age, then we owe everything to those who kept the lights on—even if only for a while.