Higher Education Inquirer

Higher Education Without Illusions. #accountability #adjunct #AI #AImeltdown #algo #alienation #anomie #anxiety #austerity #BDR #bot #boycott #climate #collegemania #collegemeltdown #crypto #divest #doomloop #edtech #edugrift #Epstein #FAFSA #greed #incel #jobless #kleptocracy #locusofcontrol #medugrift #moralcapital #nihilism #nokings #nonviolence #PSLF #PXED #QOL #rehumanization #robocollege #robostudent #roboworker #strikedebt #surveillance #temperance #TPUSA #transparency #Trump #veritas

Wednesday, June 4, 2025

News that Salesforce is buying Moonhub, AI Hiring company (Glen McGhee)

From the perspective of Maurizio Lazzarato’s concept of multi-dimensional financialization, Salesforce’s acquisition of Moonhub—a startup building AI tools for hiring—carries significance far beyond a simple business or technological transaction. Lazzarato’s framework invites us to see this move as a deepening of the financialized, machinic logic that now organizes work, subjectivity, and power relations under neoliberal capitalism.

Machinic Subjugation and Algorithmic Management

Lazzarato distinguishes between social subjection (the classic forms of subject formation, like interpellation) and machinic subjugation, in which humans and machines are integrated into assemblages that operate beyond conscious control4. The acquisition of Moonhub by Salesforce—an enterprise software giant—accelerates the deployment of AI-driven systems that automate and mediate hiring, evaluation, and onboarding. These systems function as machinic assemblages: they process data, sort candidates, and make decisions, often without transparent human oversight.

In Lazzarato’s terms, this is not just about efficiency or new tools; it is about the extension of machinic subjugation into the labor market. Workers, job seekers, and even HR professionals become nodes in a human–machine network, subject to algorithmic evaluation and control. This process depersonalizes and depoliticizes hiring decisions, shifting agency from individuals or collectives to automated systems4 5.

Financialization of Work and Subjectivity

For Lazzarato, financialization is not merely the expansion of the financial sector or the growth of debt, but a regime that reorganizes all social relations—including labor—according to the logics of risk, speculation, and investment. The integration of AI into hiring, as exemplified by Moonhub, reflects this logic:

Labor as Human Capital: Workers are increasingly treated as assets to be evaluated, optimized, and traded, much like financial instruments.
Risk and Profiling: AI tools profile candidates, assessing their “fit” and potential risk for employers, mirroring the credit-scoring and risk-assessment practices of finance.
Continuous Evaluation: The boundary between work and non-work blurs, as data about individuals is continuously collected and analyzed to inform employment decisions, extending the logic of surveillance and control5.

Subjectivation and the Erosion of Agency

A core concern in Lazzarato’s work is how new technologies of power erode the conditions for autonomous subjectivation. AI-driven hiring systems, like those developed by Moonhub, further restrict the space for workers to constitute themselves as subjects outside the logic of data-driven profiling and risk management. As Phoebe Moore notes, these systems create “structurally and objectively unequal conditions within subjective, and unequal, social relations,” threatening the “right to the subject”—the capacity for individuals to form themselves outside algorithmic governance5.

Consolidation of Corporate Power and Social Ontology

Salesforce’s absorption of Moonhub is also a consolidation of infrastructural power in the hands of a few tech-finance giants. For Lazzarato, this is part of the broader process by which financialized corporations not only dominate markets but also shape the very ontology of work, value, and social relations. The acquisition means that the logic of machinic subjugation, financialization, and algorithmic management becomes further entrenched as the default mode of organizing labor across sectors.

Summary Table: Lazzarato’s Lens on Salesforce–Moonhub

Dimension	Conventional View	Lazzarato’s Multi-Dimensional View
Technology	Efficiency, automation in hiring	Machinic subjugation, depersonalized control
Labor	Improved matching, productivity	Financialized subjectivity, continuous profiling
Power	Market competition	Corporate consolidation, infrastructural power
Subjectivity	Empowered job seekers	Erosion of agency, right to the subject at risk
Social Relations	Neutral innovation	Reorganization of power, intensified inequalities

From Lazzarato’s perspective, Salesforce’s acquisition of Moonhub is emblematic of how financialization and machinic subjugation are reshaping the labor market and subjectivity itself. It marks a further step in the transformation of work into a domain governed by algorithms, risk management, and continuous evaluation, where human agency and collective resistance are increasingly circumscribed by the imperatives of digital, financialized capitalism4 5.

Investigative Journalism Sheds Light on University of Phoenix Acquisition Attempts

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

Kevin Richert's Reporting on Idaho's Attempted Acquisition

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

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

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

The Impact of Investigative Journalism

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

U.S. Department of Education OIG's Semiannual Report Highlights Oversight of Pandemic Relief and Student Aid Programs

The U.S. Department of Education Office of Inspector General (OIG) has released its 89th Semiannual Report to Congress, covering activities from April 1, 2024, through September 30, 2024. This report underscores the OIG's commitment to ensuring accountability and integrity in the administration of federal education funds, particularly those allocated in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Oversight of Pandemic Relief Funds

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress enacted three significant statutes—the CARES Act (March 2020), the CRRSA Act (December 2020), and the American Rescue Plan (March 2021)—providing over $280 billion to support states, K–12 schools, school districts, and institutions of higher education. The OIG has been tasked with overseeing the proper utilization of these funds.

During the reporting period, the OIG issued nine reports specifically related to pandemic relief aid. These reports aimed to assess compliance with grant requirements and to identify instances of misuse or inefficiency in fund allocation and utilization. The OIG's ongoing audits and reviews are critical in ensuring that pandemic relief funds reach their intended recipients and are used effectively.

Federal Student Aid Program Oversight

The resumption of student loan repayments, following the suspension under the CARES Act, has been a focal point for the OIG. An inspection revealed that the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) needed to establish effective performance measures and indicators to evaluate its performance in returning borrowers to repayment. As of June 30, 2023, there were approximately $1.63 trillion in outstanding loans and 43.4 million total unduplicated recipients.

Disaster Recovery Oversight

Beyond pandemic-related efforts, the OIG continued its oversight of disaster recovery funds allocated in response to hurricanes and wildfires in 2018 and 2019. Nearly $2.9 billion was provided to assist K–12 schools, school districts, and higher education institutions affected by these natural disasters. The OIG's role includes auditing and investigating the management and utilization of these funds to ensure they address the educational needs of impacted students.

Investigative Outreach and Other Activities

The OIG's investigative efforts during this period also encompassed outreach activities aimed at preventing misuse of funds and promoting awareness of compliance requirements. These initiatives are part of the OIG's broader strategy to foster a culture of accountability and transparency within educational institutions and among grant recipients.

Conclusion

The 89th Semiannual Report to Congress by the U.S. Department of Education OIG highlights the agency's pivotal role in overseeing the allocation and utilization of substantial federal funds in the education sector. Through audits, inspections, and investigative activities, the OIG strives to ensure that resources are used effectively to support educational institutions and students, particularly in the wake of unprecedented challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and natural disasters.

For a comprehensive view of the OIG's findings and activities, the full report is available on the OIG's official website.

Pete Hegseth: The Drunk Uncle of American Decline

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, a Fox News personality and former Army officer, recently traveled to Asia—ostensibly to promote a vision of American strength and moral clarity. Instead, his visit served as a loud reminder that he is not a serious thinker or statesman, but rather a culture warrior playing cosplay with international politics. Like the “Drunk Uncle” character from Saturday Night Live, Hegseth is the embodiment of bluster, bad history, and bombast—an unfiltered product of a broken American system.

A Product of Privilege and Propaganda

Hegseth’s path mirrors that of many elites in America's increasingly hollowed institutions. Educated at Princeton and Harvard, two of the country's most prestigious institutions, he is not a populist outsider but an avatar of the privileged class who performs outrage for the camera. His education—meant to instill nuance and responsibility—has instead armed him with rhetorical flair devoid of intellectual depth. The contradiction is glaring: a man forged by elite systems now lambasting the very institutions that nurtured him.

What’s broken isn't just Hegseth. It’s the entire ecosystem that allowed someone like him to ascend—where performative patriotism, right-wing grievance, and cable news charisma count for more than knowledge, empathy, or accountability.

Hegseth Abroad: Projection, Not Diplomacy

In his most recent journey through Asia, Hegseth acted less like a journalist or goodwill ambassador and more like an aging frat boy stumbling into a global chessboard. He visited South Korea and Japan as part of a Fox Nation segment intended to highlight America’s military alliances and cultural strength in the region. But rather than engage with complexity, Hegseth offered a stream of simplified binaries: good vs. evil, America vs. the world, Christianity vs. secularism.

He seemed less interested in understanding Asian societies than in broadcasting American exceptionalism in its most cartoonish form. There was no acknowledgment of America’s complicated role in the region, no room for history or diplomacy—only vague invocations of freedom and strength, layered with a smirk.

The reaction from international observers was muted but telling. In diplomatic circles, Hegseth’s antics landed somewhere between awkward and embarrassing. Like SNL’s Drunk Uncle—who rants about “kids today” and immigrants at Thanksgiving dinner—Hegseth represents a kind of noisy nostalgia: yearning for a past that never really existed, while refusing to reckon with the future.

The Manufactured Tough Guy

Hegseth sells an image of masculinity and American fortitude, one manufactured by Fox News and reinforced by props: the flag pin, the rolled-up sleeves, the veteran status. But this branding obscures a more troubling truth. Hegseth has repeatedly advocated for the erosion of democratic norms—from embracing Trump’s stolen election lies to defending authoritarian foreign leaders. He once even claimed that he doesn’t care about due process when it comes to suspected terrorists.

This kind of rhetoric isn’t patriotism—it’s nihilism dressed in red, white, and blue. It’s the logical endpoint of a political-media complex that favors noise over nuance, and fear over fact. In this environment, Hegseth’s rise is not an anomaly; it’s an inevitability.

Higher Education’s Role in the Circus

There is a cruel irony in Hegseth’s Ivy League background. Institutions like Princeton and Harvard still trade on their reputations as bastions of truth and reason, even as they produce figures who erode those very values on the public stage. Hegseth is a symptom of elite capture—where pedigree is weaponized, not for public service, but for personal branding.

Higher education, in this light, has failed—not because it admits the Hegseths of the world, but because it fails to instill moral responsibility in its graduates. It produces Drunk Uncles with diplomas, who replace careful thought with culture war clichés.

Final Thoughts

Pete Hegseth's trip to Asia is unlikely to shape foreign policy, but that’s not the point. His real audience is domestic: viewers seeking affirmation, not information. Like SNL’s Drunk Uncle, he offers them a cartoon version of reality, one where America is always right, enemies are everywhere, and complex problems can be solved with slogans and swagger.

In the meantime, the real world grows more complicated—and dangerous. And America, instead of meeting the moment with wisdom, sends its loudest uncles to the table.

For more investigative coverage of American education, media, and the public mind, stay with the Higher Education Inquirer.

This Thursday on the Future Trends Forum: an international enrollment scenario (Bryan Alexander)

How might international student enrollment changes impact colleges and universities? This Thursday, on June 5th, from 2-3 pm ET, the Future Trends Forum is holding an interactive exercise to work through an evidence-based scenario wherein fall 2025 numbers crash. Everyone will participate by representing themselves in the roles they currently have or would like to take up, and in those positions explore the scenario.

We will develop responses to the situation in real time, which may help us think ahead for whatever form the crisis eventually takes. In this exercise, everyone gets to collaboratively explore how they might respond.

As with our first election simulation, not to mention our solarpunk, generative AI, black swan, and digital twin workshops, this one will involve participants as cocreators and investigators, exploring and determining what might come next. Consider it a trial run for a potential future.

To RSVP ahead of time, or to jump straight in at 2 pm ET this Thursday, click here:

https://georgetown.zoom.us/meeting/register/iHJBlk7_QAGzfC2JEfEbZQ

To find more information about the Future Trends Forum, including notes and recordings of all previous sessions, click here: http://forum.futureofeducation.us/.

(chart from Statista)

Tuesday, June 3, 2025

What can you do to save democracy? (David Cay Johnston)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A National Trend Accelerated by Crisis

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

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

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

Private Colleges Under Pressure

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

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

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

The Role of Credit Agencies and Political Climate

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

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

The Future of Mergers in Higher Ed

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

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

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

Monday, June 2, 2025

June 5th Closing Reception & Artist Walkthrough of GIVE LIGHT Exhibit @CUNYSLU

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

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

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

The Authoritarian Impulse

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

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

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

The Age of AI and the Erasure of the Human

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

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

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

A Culture of Disposability

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

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

The echoes of The Twilight Zone are deafening.

Resistance and Redemption

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, June 1, 2025

Veterans Left Behind: How Oversight Failures in VA-Approved Education Programs Put Thousands at Risk (Michael S. Hainline)

[Editor's note: Michael S. Hainline is a member of Restore the GI Bill for Veterans.]

Veterans across the country rely on the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) approval system to ensure their education and job training programs are safe, legitimate, and lead to meaningful employment. Yet, thousands have been failed by a system riddled with oversight gaps, conflicting interests, and regulatory loopholes that allow unsafe equipment, poor training, and deceptive schools to remain approved — often at great personal and financial cost to the veterans and taxpayers.

I know this all too well. As a former military police officer who trained as a truck driver in 2016 under a VA-approved program, I was exposed to dangerous, poorly maintained equipment that ultimately caused me to lose the use of my right arm for over a year, a disability I will carry for life.

Despite repeated complaints to the program staff and the assigned State Approving Agency (SAA), the official body responsible for oversight, my concerns were dismissed, and no corrective action was taken until years later — and only after significant evidence surfaced.

Unsafe Equipment Ignored

During my class, veteran student Mike and I, and non-veteran students Dustin & Richard, discovered that the landing gear on the 1977 Stoughton trailer assigned for training was missing an axle and four wheels. I reported this to the staff, who admitted the equipment was faulty but took no timely corrective action. A veteran student later informed me that the school replaced the landing gear on a similar 1987 Great Dane trailer sometime after our class ended, contradicting official reports submitted to the VA and state approving agencies that claimed no issues existed.

To confirm these claims, I located the trailer used in program advertising and compared photos taken during and after our training. The landing gear had indeed been replaced—freshly painted and altered, as confirmed by Great Dane Trailers’ manufacturer.

The trucks used for training showed similar problems. According to Vehicle Identification Numbers, three trucks had modifications—such as frame cutting between tandem axles—that Daimler Trucks North America (the manufacturer) neither recommended nor approved. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration guidelines were not followed, creating additional safety concerns, per conversations with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

Systemic Oversight Failures

These issues highlight a broader problem: the State Approving Agencies, under contract with the VA, are failing to provide adequate oversight and ensure program quality. The VA Office of Inspector General’s 2018 report (OIG Report #16-00862-179) found that 86% of SAAs did not sufficiently oversee educational programs to ensure only eligible, high-quality programs were approved. The report estimated that without reforms, the VA could improperly pay out $2.3 billion over five years to subpar or fraudulent institutions.

Alarmingly, the VA Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) is restricted in its ability to question or audit the reports submitted by SAAs. There is no mechanism for veterans to challenge or appeal SAA findings, effectively leaving veterans powerless within a system that is supposed to protect them.

Veteran Service Organizations’ Silence

I sought help from veteran service organizations but found little interest in addressing these critical problems. The American Legion initially responded to my outreach in 2017, engaging in conversations and phone calls. However, within months, communication ceased without explanation. Attempts to meet with American Legion leadership and their legislative contacts, including Dr. Joe Wescott—an influential consultant on veterans’ education—were unsuccessful. Dr. Wescott dismissed concerns about the integrity of the SAA’s targeted risk-based reviews, citing that schools typically fix problems before SAAs visit, and failed to investigate conflicts of interest between report authors and SAA officials.

At the 2024 American Legion convention, a planned meeting between a fellow veteran and Legion leadership was abruptly canceled. Meanwhile, other veteran groups such as Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), Disabled American Veterans (DAV), and Veterans Education Success (VES) showed engagement, but the American Legion and Student Veterans of America remained unresponsive.

The American Legion’s own 2016 Resolution #304 warned of the exact issues I and countless other veterans have endured: deceptive practices by some education providers, poor accreditation standards, and underfunded and understaffed SAAs unable to enforce proper oversight.

A Cycle of Scandal

Congressional staff admitted privately that veterans’ education legislation rarely progresses without support from key players like Dr. Wescott and the National Association of State Approving Agencies (NASAA), whose leaders have repeatedly declined to meet with veterans raising concerns. These complex relationships between SAAs, VA officials, veteran groups, and legislators perpetuate a “cycle of scandal” that leaves veterans vulnerable and taxpayers footing the bill.

In 2023, a combat veteran attending the same program I did reported similar frustrations: only one of three trucks was roadworthy, severely limiting practical training time for a full class of students. Despite numerous documented complaints, the NASAA president refused to meet or discuss these issues.

The Human Cost

Beyond financial waste and bureaucratic failures, real human harm occurs. My injury, caused by training on unsafe equipment, robbed me of a year of mobility and continues to affect my life. Thousands of veterans have lost their G.I. Bill benefits, incurred debt for worthless or limited degrees, or been misled about their job prospects after completing programs approved by the very agencies meant to protect them.

The internet is rife with investigative reports exposing waste, fraud, and abuse in VA-approved programs. Headlines like “School Scammers Are Robbing Veterans and the Government Blind” and “For-Profit Colleges Exploit Veterans’ G.I. Bill Benefits” are far too common.

A Call for Reform

Despite these glaring failures, meaningful reform remains elusive. The VA OIG report and numerous investigations call for increased accountability, transparency, and cooperation between the VBA, SAAs, veteran service organizations, and Congress. Veterans deserve a system that genuinely safeguards their education and wellbeing.

My fellow former veteran students and I have organized online and turned to media outlets to break the silence. It’s time for the public and policymakers to hear our stories—not just slogans and “catchy” legislative titles that fail to restore lost benefits or improve program quality.

We veterans demand change—because we have earned more than empty promises and a broken system that leaves us behind.

Michael S. Hainline is a veteran and advocate living in Pensacola, Florida. He served in active duty and reserve military components and now works to expose the failures of oversight in VA-approved education and job training programs. He can be reached at hainline1962@gmail.com.

Saturday, May 31, 2025

We (still) can't be neutral.

The Higher Education Inquirer cannot be neutral, not in times like these. These times, 2025 and beyond, demand that working-class folks, including journalists, expose the truth as we perceive it, just as other media outlets present the truth through the lens of those in power: the neoliberal elites and the Trumpian elites. We cannot pretend we do not see the climate chaos ahead or the next man-made economic crisis. And we cannot believe we are as important or as courageous as the muckrakers of the 20th century, women and men like Ida B. Wells, Ida Tarbell, and Upton Sinclair. But we do hope we have made a difference, ever so slight. We believe our readers can do the same. #NoKings

Friday, May 30, 2025

“Worse Than McCarthyism”: Historian Ellen Schrecker on Trump’s War Against Universities & Students (Democracy Now!)

The War on Thought: Higher Education and the Fight Against Authoritarianism (Henry Giroux)

According to the 2024 Democracy Index, approximately 45% of the world's population now resides in democracies, yet only 8% live in full democracies. The rise in authoritarian regimes is particularly alarming, with over 35% of the global population living under such systems. This backslide is attributed to factors such as authoritarian crackdowns, increasing political polarization, and geopolitical tensions. Regions like Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America have seen marked declines, while even historically stable democracies like the U.S. face concerns over institutional erosion and political divisiveness. The data calls for a reevaluation of global political trends, urging a commitment to reinforcing democratic principles in the face of rising authoritarianism and instability, a task made all the more challenging by far-right attacks on higher education in the U.S., Hungary, and India.

For those of us shaped in the revolutionary democratic spirit of the sixties, it is both painful and disheartening to witness the rise of fascism in the U.S. and the slow, tragic unraveling of democracy around the world. Decades of neoliberalism have relentlessly eroded higher education, with a few notable exceptions. The once-cherished notion that the university is a vital advocate for democracy and the public good now seems like a distant memory. What we face today is the collapse of education into mere training, an institution dominated by regressive instrumentalism, hedge-fund administrators, and the growing threat of transforming higher education into spaces of ideological conformity, pedagogical repression, and corporate servitude.

We have seen this before in other authoritarian regimes, where the outcome was the death not only of academic freedom but also of democracy itself.

In the face of the current attacks on higher education, especially in the U.S., it becomes more difficult for faculty to make thought matter, to encourage students to ask important questions, and to view thinking as a form of political engagement, to think the unthinkable in the service of justice and equality. Yet despite these overwhelming challenges, higher education remains one of the few remaining spaces where critical thought can still flourish, serving as a bulwark against authoritarianism. As scholars Heba Gowayed and Jessica Halliday Hardie have noted, despite the deep flaws of academic institutions, they remain vital spaces for critical thought and civic learning, making them prime targets for authoritarian attacks. They write:

While academic institutions are deeply flawed, they are also, in their ideal form, bastions for thought and pedagogy. They are where students can make mistakes and learn from one another. They are also crucial spaces of learning for the citizenry. This is why they are the longtime targets of rightwing attack.

As Hannah Arendt once said, “What really makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other kind of dictatorship to rule is that the people are not informed”. This lack of information and historical awareness is precisely what authoritarians seek to exploit. The need for intellectual autonomy and historical consciousness is paramount in resisting these threats. Arendt's work on the erosion of thinking under totalitarian regimes remains incredibly relevant. It was quite clear to her that a government that lies deprives people of their capacity to think, act, and judge. She writes: “If everyone always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but that no one believes anything at all anymore, and rightly so, because lies, by their very nature, have to be changed, to be ‘re-lied,’ so to speak”.

Under the Trump regime, we are witnessing the erosion of critical thought, a deliberate rewriting of history, and the paralyzing of intellectual autonomy, each a direct manifestation of authoritarian tactics. We live in an authoritarian society where the truth itself is under attack, along with the institutions that allow citizens to differentiate between truth and lies, thereby holding power accountable. This is more than an act of irrationality; it is a fundamental element of fascism. This is a signpost for revealing the damaged passions and delusions of invincibility that characterize a culture’s descent into authoritarianism and the crime of what Arendt called “the deprivation of citizenship.” The erosion of intellectual autonomy inevitably leads to a denial of citizenship, as Arendt warns. In the face of this, higher education, traditionally a site of critical engagement, is now under siege.

Higher education, traditionally a space for critical thinking and civic engagement, however limited, is now under a savage assault by the global far-right. International students face detentions and deportations without cause, and professors are silenced for speaking out against injustice. The state, right-wing mobs, and even university administrations perpetuate this attack on the university, a situation reminiscent of McCarthy-era repression, though more deeply embedded in the system.

The emerging fascism across the globe underscores the need to educate young people, and the wider public, on the importance of critical thinking. Understanding the threat of authoritarianism is more crucial than ever. Ethics matters, civic education matters, and the humanities matter, especially today. Political consciousness, a crucial element of democracy, must be nurtured, it does not emerge automatically. In a culture that devalues public education, silences dissent, and commodifies expression, many youth feel abandoned. They are hyper-visible as threats but invisible as citizens.

The horror of fascist violence is back, though it is now draped in AI-guided bombs, ethnic cleansing, and white supremacists basking in their project of racial cleansing while destroying every vestige of decency, human rights, and democracy. As global fascism rises, youth have taken center stage in the resistance, challenging forces that threaten both democracy and justice. This emerging youth-led movement, from Indigenous land defenders to climate activists and campus protesters, is pivotal in shaping the future.

Against the rise of fascism globally and its attack on any institution that supports critical thinking and a crucial form of pedagogical citizenship, youth are leading resistance movements around the world. From Indigenous land defenders to climate activists and campus protesters, young people are naming the violences shaping their lives and imagining alternatives. This demands a broad, interconnected movement to unite struggles against ecological destruction, systemic racism, economic inequality, and the transformation of democracy into an authoritarian state.

Education must be central to these efforts, not just formal schooling, but a deeper political and ethical education that links knowledge to action. Authoritarian regimes fear such education, which is why they attack libraries, ban books, and silence educators. They understand what is often forgotten: education is the foundation for both defending and enabling democracy.

This is not a time for despair, but for militant hope, rooted in resistance, collective care, and the belief that youth are not disposable but vital to a democratic future. They are not the problem; they are the possibility. In a time when universities face racist, anti-intellectual assaults from demagogues like Trump, Stephen Miller, and Kristi Noem, epitomized by the recent attack on Harvard, it is crucial for educators, students, administrators, and those who believe in democracy to rise against the authoritarian forces threatening the U.S. and emerging democracies alike. It is absolutely essential to stand against genocidal warmongers, ethnic cleansing, and state-sanctioned violence, at home and abroad. It is fundamental to fight for civic courage, social responsibility, and dignity, values that sustain a thriving democracy.

We must learn from history, to prevent Trump and his merry crew of authoritarians from turning higher education into laboratories of dehumanization and indoctrination. To the students delivering graduation speeches in the name of justice and freedom, such as Logan Rozos, and being punished by university administrators for speaking out, such courage stands as a model of hope. These brave students, along with the student protesters fighting for Palestinian freedom, make clear that education is a crucial bulwark against what the conservative Spanish think tank, Foro de Sevilla, has called the "dark paths of neo-Nazism," which are with us once again. What must be fought in the realm of culture and on the streets at all costs is the silence surrounding the thousands of children killed in Gaza, the erasure of historical memory, and the war on youth in our own land, exemplified by a GOP budget soaked in blood.

Fascism is more than a distant moment in history; it is a breathing threat and wound that has emerged in different forms once again. And the endpoint of such savagery is always the same, racial and ethnic hatred that ends with broken and bloodied bodies in the camps, detention centers, and mass graves.

Any viable call to resistance must stand in stark contrast to the hollow platitudes of right-wing figures, compromised politicians, and celebrities who serve the status quo. Their words and policies echo a complicit silence in the face of government corruption, student abductions, and tax cuts for the wealthy funded by the poor. This is gangster capitalism at its worst.

Hopefully, in such dark times, there will emerge a language of critique and hope, the power of collective struggle, and an education rooted in justice and empowerment. One that fuels a call to mass action, civic courage, and the relentless pursuit of democracy through unity and defiance.

Thursday, May 29, 2025

Liberty University’s Standing for Freedom Center and the Battle Lines of a New American Divide

As the United States continues to fracture along political and cultural lines, Liberty University’s Standing for Freedom Center (SFFC) is not just observing the divide—it is actively working to widen it. Positioned at the vanguard of Christian Nationalist thought, the SFFC promotes a vision of the nation where faith is law, politics is pulpit, and pluralism is cast as a spiritual threat.

In recent years, the center has ramped up rhetoric that casts the American culture war as a righteous struggle between biblical Christians and a “godless elite.” Nowhere is this more evident than in its escalating campaign against Planned Parenthood, which the center presents not just as a healthcare provider, but as the embodiment of neoliberal moral decay.

From Cultural Critique to Wartime Rhetoric

The SFFC has turned its media platforms into a moral war room, producing daily content that frames modern American politics in biblical terms—light versus darkness, good versus evil, Christians versus cultural Marxists. The center regularly targets institutions like public universities, Hollywood, and Washington bureaucracies as complicit in the erosion of Christian civilization.

A recent SFFC campaign, for example, lambasted Planned Parenthood with claims that it is not merely offering reproductive services, but “profiting from death.” Referencing the organization’s most recent annual report, the center emphasized that Planned Parenthood had performed over 402,000 abortions in a single year while pulling in more than $2 billion in revenue—a “record-breaking” number, according to the SFFC.

The Anti-Abortion Crusade as a Flashpoint

In SFFC messaging, this abortion data is used not just to critique Planned Parenthood, but to indict the American system as complicit in mass murder—what it describes as a “death movement” funded by taxpayers. The center argues that federal support for Planned Parenthood indirectly subsidizes abortion, even if laws technically prohibit direct funding for the procedure.

“This organization,” an SFFC statement reads, “which has long received hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars annually, can sustain itself without public funding. Yet it continues to benefit from the federal trough while expanding its abortion services.”

The center draws a direct connection between this funding and what it sees as a systemic betrayal of America’s moral core. By painting Planned Parenthood as both a “political and cultural powerhouse” and a “merchant of death,” the SFFC not only undermines trust in public institutions—it rallies students and followers to view America’s future as dependent on destroying these institutions altogether.

Indoctrination, Not Education

While most university-affiliated think tanks encourage debate and pluralism, the SFFC operates more like an ideological factory. Its leaders are unapologetic in their intent to raise up a generation of “culture warriors” who will go into politics, media, and ministry with a mandate to reshape society in a narrowly defined Christian image.

The anti-abortion campaign is also used to collect data and recruit young activists. On the SFFC website, readers are invited to respond to a poll:

Do you think young people are becoming more conservative?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
Email Address: ___________

A disclaimer informs users that “completing this poll entitles you to receive communications from Liberty University free of charge,” and that by participating, they agree to receive ongoing messaging rooted in the SFFC’s worldview.

Christian Nationalism and the Call for a Parallel America

By centering its messaging on abortion, gender identity, religious liberty, and “globalist control,” the SFFC is laying the ideological groundwork for a future in which two Americas coexist uneasily—or collide outright. One America, in this vision, is neoliberal and secular, ruled by technocrats and activists. The other is God-ordained, led by a “remnant” of faithful patriots.

This worldview leaves no room for compromise. It promotes defunding Planned Parenthood not as a policy choice, but as a moral imperative—a “necessary step toward reclaiming the soul of our nation.” Any opposition to this vision is treated as treasonous, immoral, and aligned with “demonic forces.”

The University’s Role in Civil Conflict

In past decades, higher education was viewed as a site for civic formation and critical thinking. But with institutions like Liberty University turning their academic platforms into partisan strongholds, the American university system is becoming a battlefield.

The Standing for Freedom Center is not merely part of the conversation—it is actively inciting a form of civil conflict. Its campaigns seek to delegitimize not just opposing arguments, but entire political structures. And in doing so, they push the country closer to a clash not just of ideas, but of identities.

Conclusion: Toward a Theology of Division

By promoting a view of the United States as a nation under siege by secular forces, the SFFC turns policy debates into spiritual warfare. Whether on abortion, education, or civil rights, every issue is recast as a battle for the soul of the country.

This theology of division, dressed in the language of liberty and moral clarity, may resonate with young evangelicals who feel alienated from mainstream culture. But its long-term effect may be the erosion of the shared civic space that makes pluralistic democracy possible.

As the 2026 election cycle accelerates, and as institutions continue to splinter, the question is no longer whether Liberty University is shaping the culture war—it’s how much longer the country can avoid the kind of civil fracture the Standing for Freedom Center seems eager to see fulfilled.

Do you have information about educational and religious institutions shaping political conflict? Contact the Higher Education Inquirer confidentially at gmcghee@aya.yale.edu.

Wednesday, May 28, 2025

Scott Pelley BASHES Trump Admin During Wake Forest Commencement (The Hill)

U.S. Visa Suspensions Under Trump Administration Derail Dreams of Ecuadorian Students (Primicias)

In a sharp blow to international academic mobility, the Trump administration has suspended student visa interviews across U.S. embassies and consulates, leaving thousands of foreign students—including many from Ecuador—in limbo. The policy, though not enshrined in law, is already having profound effects on individuals and institutions alike.

For students like Valeria, a 23-year-old from Quito, the consequences are deeply personal. After receiving her acceptance letter from a university in Pennsylvania and paying her tuition, Valeria now finds herself unsure whether she can even enter the country. “I called the consulate, contacted five immigration attorneys—even my university doesn’t know what’s going on,” she told Primicias. “Nobody can tell me if I’ll be allowed in or deported.”

Valeria’s uncertainty stems from an executive directive that halts interviews for F-1 (academic), M-1 (vocational), and J-1 (exchange visitor) visas—crucial legal pathways for hundreds of thousands of international students entering the U.S. annually. Though the suspension is being framed as temporary, it has already disrupted the educational futures of prospective students worldwide, including many from Latin America.

“This is not a symbolic gesture,” warned U.S.-based immigration consultant Pablo Acosta. “It’s an executive decision with immediate and real-life consequences.”

A Chilling Effect on International Education

International students are more than just a demographic. According to the Institute of International Education (IIE), over one million international students were enrolled in U.S. higher education institutions during the 2022–2023 academic year. They represented about 5.6% of the total U.S. college student population and contributed more than $38 billion to the American economy, according to data from NAFSA: Association of International Educators.

Each institution, on average, hosts about 400 international students, although figures vary significantly depending on size and global ranking. This flow of students not only brings financial support but enriches academic life and sustains graduate programs in STEM, business, and other high-demand fields.

The suspension of visa interviews threatens to destabilize this ecosystem.

Looking Elsewhere: Canada and Europe

The Trump administration’s restrictive stance is driving many Ecuadorian students to look north to Canada or across the Atlantic to Europe. José Villamar, a student from Guayaquil who had planned to study environmental engineering in Texas, described how the suspension has frozen his plans. “Without the visa interview, the university can’t issue my I-20. Everything is on hold.”

Visa advisors are now encouraging students to consider alternatives. “The advantage of Canada is its consistency,” explained Norman Ordóñez, a visa consultant in Ecuador. “You can study, work, and eventually apply for residency. The U.S. is putting that dream on hold. Meanwhile, countries like Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands are becoming more attractive due to their transparent pathways and financial aid programs.”

Collateral Damage: U.S. Higher Ed and the Global Reputation

While the Trump administration frames its policy as a national security and immigration control measure, it risks damaging the global reputation of U.S. higher education. Inconsistency, unpredictability, and politicization of visa policy undermine institutional planning and student confidence.

In interviews with Primicias, affected students expressed despair over losing control of their futures for reasons far beyond their efforts. “The hardest part isn’t changing countries,” said Valeria. “It’s giving up on a dream for reasons that have nothing to do with your hard work.”

The Higher Education Inquirer sees this as part of a broader pattern of hostility toward international engagement within U.S. academia, especially under right-wing populist regimes. The long-term consequences could include a decline in enrollment, brain drain, and weakened international partnerships.

As global education becomes more competitive, the United States may find that once-burned students and institutions don’t easily return.

For more on this developing story and others impacting international education, student rights, and global equity in higher education, follow The Higher Education Inquirer.

Search This Blog