Higher Education in Retreat (Gary Roth)

 [Editor's note: This article first appeared in the Brooklyn Rail.  We thank the Brooklyn Rail for allowing us to repost this.]

For decades, the top-tier colleges and universities—often represented by Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, but including a few dozen other private and public institutions as well—have reshaped themselves to accommodate the rapidly-changing demographic profile of the United States.1 From all appearances, the universities were also in harmony with the sensibilities and preferences of the country’s leading citizens. Key moments, like the sanctioning of gay marriage that found support from wide-spread sectors of the upper class, seemed to solidify the drift towards a diverse and tolerant social order, one that resonated not only domestically but internationally as well.

The future evolution of civil society was, in this way of thinking, firmly and finally in hand. Bitter acrimony might characterize the political world or single-issue items like abortion, but actual developments outweighed the leftover pockets of resistance, which in any case were thought to be localized in less significant parts of the country and the world and could at best only slow the inevitable. How hard people pushed for change would ultimately determine the future.

This somnambulistic mode of thought pervaded the university world and also wide swaths of the liberal public. It helps explain the ease with which parts of the university community, after an initial round of caution, joined hands with its political opposition to suppress the campus protests that developed in response to Israel’s brutality towards Palestinian civilians.

Appeasement and accommodation, while regrettable within the academic community because of the retreat from sacrosanct ideas such as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, nonetheless set the stage for developments that followed the national elections at the end of last year. Martin Niemöller’s self-confession about his support—as a Lutheran pastor—for the German fascists during the 1930s captures nicely the corner into which the higher education community had boxed itself:

When the Nazis came for the Communists, I kept quiet; I wasn’t a communist.
When they came for the trade unionists, I kept quiet; I wasn’t a trade unionist.
When they jailed the Social Democrats, I kept quiet; I wasn’t a social democrat.
When they jailed the Jews, I kept quiet; I wasn’t a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left who could protest.2

Without a vibrant protest movement already in place to push against harsh and arbitrary actions, the universities seemed to have little choice but to acquiesce to a regime that seems interested in flattening the population into an undifferentiated mass.3

Because appeasement and accommodation have been embraced as proactive survival tactics, resistance has centered on a judicial system thought to be less conservative than the groups that have come to dominate the executive and legislative branches of government, a judiciary conceptualized as a mediator rather than an initiator and enforcer of social conflict. Given the legal system’s history, this too becomes another moment of sleep walking. It is a huge distance from the dynamism that characterized the world of higher education not long ago.

Among the most dynamic institutions have been the privately-governed universities like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Not just their social vision, but their great wealth allowed them to embrace initiatives that stand at the forefront of attempts to remold institutional behavior. Front and center have been efforts to diversify the upper ranks of corporate, governmental, and non-profit establishments such that they too reflect the diversity of the population at large.

Previous attempts to diversify the collegiate student body by means of affirmative action programs that focused on underrepresented groups, especially African Americans and Latines, were struck down by the judiciary. Anti-affirmative action backlash took aim at the admissions policies at highly-competitive graduate programs, such as elite law and medical schools, and on prestigious scholarship programs. The backlash, in other words, concentrated on the byways that provided access into the upper levels of society.

Schools and programs that served the remainder of the population were not of particular concern. Graduate programs in public administration, for instance, where the training of mid-level administrators is the aim, rarely came under attack, whether located at medium-sized liberal arts colleges or regional state universities. These types of institutions also suspended their affirmative action initiatives, but mostly as preemptive moves to avoid future litigation. By strategically targeting the institutions at the top, the entire system was enticed to reorient itself.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives were one of the responses to both past and recent judicial rollbacks. These were initiatives directed toward the recruitment and retention of underrepresented groups rather than their admission and funding. DEI initiatives, though, did not deal with the cost of attendance, which at the elite private institutions is beyond everyone’s means except for the wealthy. For tuition, room, and board to attend as an undergraduate, the current cost for the 2025–26 school year at Princeton, for example, is $82,650. Fees are extra.4

Financial incentives based on socioeconomic status, however, were a strategy that seemingly silenced all critics. The most generous programs encompass virtually all applicants from either a working or middle class background; that is, everyone except the elite is covered as long as household or parental income is below $200,000 annually. At Princeton, the limit is $100,000, pegged considerably above the level of median household income in the United States.5

This allows the institutions to be “needs-blind” and recruit students no matter their financial situation. A tuition-free college education—once a hallmark of publicly-funded institutions—has been revived at the upper end of the spectrum, a profound assertion by these institutions of their intent to further the socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic integration of the upper class.

One consequence of these cost-free programs is that it is often cheaper to attend an elite college like Princeton than to attend the nearby publicly-funded state university, the flagship institution—in this case, Rutgers University-New Brunswick. These figures are drawn from government calculations that show actual expenses for families at different tiers of the socioeconomic spectrum:6

CHART 1 – ANNUAL UNDERGRADUATE NET COST OF ATTENDANCE

Family income	PRINCETON	RUTGERS-NEW BRUNSWICK
Less than $ 30,000	$  2,518	$15,885
$30,001 - $ 48,000	$  4,682	$15,532
$48,001 - $ 75,000	$  7,652	$17,578
$75,001 - $110,000	$13,849	$24,020
Over $110,001	$39,943	$33,460

 

A significant reversal has taken place. The elite privates have become the exemplars for the entire system of higher education, not just academically but economically as well. It makes economic sense for the poor to attend elite private institutions (assuming they are offered one of the few open slots) and for the rich to attend publicly-funded ones. Because student loans are not part of these aid packages, students at elite colleges graduate with less debt than students at nearby public flagships.7

We find, then, that the more selective the college—Princeton admits five percent of applicants, Rutgers-New Brunswick sixty-five percent—the cheaper it is to attend, and the more likely you are to graduate—at Princeton ninety-eight percent, at Rutgers-New Brunswick eighty-four percent—the less that debt encumbers you afterwards. And what’s true about the comparison of Princeton and its nearby publicly-funded flagship is true in other states also: Harvard and University of Massachusetts in Amherst, Yale and the University of Connecticut at Storrs, and so on.

Just as important, student socioeconomic profiles parallel those at nearby public flagships. At Princeton, one in five (twenty percent) of its students receives a Pell Grant. These are the federally-funded grants awarded when family income is below, roughly, $50,000. Pell Grants thus serve as a reasonable measure of the density of students from working class and poor backgrounds at a particular institution. At Rutgers-New Brunswick, it is one in four students (28 percent).

Socioeconomic programs like the one at Princeton exist at more than a hundred public and privately-governed college institutions. Taken altogether, there has been a quiet undermining of commonly-accepted assumptions regarding elite institutions and their public counterparts. That the private elite institutions often outperform the public sector ones in matters traditionally considered the latter’s prerogative shows how deeply intertwined the private and public sectors have become.

Yet for all their efforts, the elite institutions still do not reflect the demographics of the population at large. This is true for the elite privates and also for public flagships. Nationally, thirty percent of students receive Pell Grants, a measure of the degree to which the working class has become a substantial part of the university community. At top-tier schools, however, fewer of their students receive Pell Grants. At Harvard, it is seventeen percent; at Yale, nineteen percent; at the Texas flagship, UT Austin, twenty-five percent; at the Florida flagship, UF Gainesville, twenty-three percent.8

That socioeconomic diversity is lower at elite privates and public flagships than is the national norm is not surprising, given the amply-documented correlation between parental finances and scholastic performance.9 Students from wealthier backgrounds, as a rule, perform better academically and are more likely to attend prestigious institutions. Still, the top-tier institutions have come a long way from the times in which they represented, with few exceptions: only the elite.

At places like Princeton, the student body is nearly as diverse racially and ethnically as at the nearby state flagship. According to the broad demographic categories used in government publications and legislation, we find that at both Princeton and Rutgers-New Brunswick, there are no majorities, only minorities:10

CHART 2 – RACE AND ETHNICITY AT TOP-TIER INSTITUTIONS

(in percents)	PRINCETON	RUTGERS-NEW BRUNSWICK
Asian	24	33
Black (African American)	9	7
Hispanic (Latine)	10	16
White	36	31
Non-Resident Alien (International Students)	12	7
Two or More Races (Multiracial)	7	4

 

Immigration and migration initially produced majority-less campuses at urban public institutions; in other words, at institutions located in major metropolitan areas—places where jobs are numerous and resistance to newcomers often diffuse and undirected. At Princeton and other elite institutions, however, it is not demographics, but merit—in combination with these economically-based financial aid packages—that drive the dynamic.

Forty-five years ago, individuals self-identified as white represented eighty-four percent of all undergraduates but only seventy-seven percent of eighteen to twenty-four year-olds (Chart 3). Higher education was a significant cultural dynamic for this group. A major reversal has since taken place, in which the white population now accounts for fifty-two percent of eighteen to twenty-four year-olds and the same percentage of college students. Their lead has been lost.

Every other group has moved in the opposite direction, increasing its presence within the collegiate system faster than their increase in either population or the prime college-attending age cohort (eighteen to twenty-four year-olds). The latter group has been relatively stable within the Black population, for instance, only increasing one percentage point from thirteen to fourteen percent during those decades. But the presence of Black students among undergraduate college students has increased from nine to thirteen percent. Among the Latine (Hispanic) population, the increase has been dramatic. While their share of eighteen to twenty-four year-olds tripled from eight to twenty-four percent, their share among undergraduates increased more than five-fold.

Affirmative action and DEI initiatives fostered the importance of a college education as a means to circumvent obstacles within the economy:11

CHART 3 – RACIAL & ETHNIC DIVERSITY

	18-24 YEAR-OLDS		HIGHER EDUCATION
(in percents)	1980	2022	1980	2022
Asian	2	6	2	8
Black	13	14	9	13
Hispanic	8	24	4	22
White	77	52	84	52
Two or More Races	—	4	—	4

 

Over the past half century, a leveling of the population has taken place, with the Black, Latine, and white communities all participating in post-secondary education at rates equivalent to their respective shares of the prime college-attending age group (eighteen to twenty-four year-olds).

This equalization is an aspect of reality that has been neglected by the academic community, which has generally focused on the advantages members of the white community have both educationally and occupationally due to kinship and parental networks, friendship circles, neighborhood contacts, and a lack of discrimination based on skin color. Implicit in this view is that whites need not rely on the educational system as heavily as other groups, since alternative avenues of advancement are available.

In many of the top institutions, the fall-off of white students is quite pronounced:

CHART 4 - DIVERSITY AT PRIVATE ELITES AND PUBLIC FLAGSHIPS

(in percents)	Higher Education	Harvard	Yale	Columbia	UPenn	UT Austin	UF Gainesville
Asian	8	22	23	18	28	25	12
Black	13	9	9	8	9	5	5
Hispanic	22	12	16	16	11	28	24
White	52	33	32	30	30	32	50
Non-Resident	—	14	11	18	12	4	2
Two/+ Races	4	7	7	6	5	4	5

 

During the decades in which affirmative action and DEI programs have attempted to bring some measure of equal access and equal achievement to educational endeavors, parts of the white community were drifting away. This blind-spot within the academic community’s understanding of social dynamics meant that concepts of relative disadvantage might have fit the situation just as well as ones of privilege and advantage.12

Increased funding in order to include whites in DEI initiatives is a possible solution, although a fundamental rethinking of inclusivity is also called for. Instead, the elimination of services and programs has become a mandate to ensure that no group will be helped to rise out of an undifferentiated mass. If government and higher education are taken out of the picture, social advancement, which always requires additional resources, then hinges solely on the wherewithal of individual families.

The university community, with its emphasis on inclusion and diversity, has represented a last outpost of a kind of thinking—of governmental spending and educational activism—that was once heralded under the label of Keynesianism and dates back to the immediate post-World War II period when everything seemed possible. Like the fate of the white population, society itself has gone through a long-winded period of evolution and transformation despite the tenacity of modes of thought initially generated in previous times.

Because colleges and universities depend so heavily on external funding for research grants and student loans, the political world has laid claim to its governance in ever-aggressive ways. The opening thrust has concentrated on the elite privates—Columbia, UPenn, Harvard, and Princeton among them. The integration of the two worlds of politics and education, in this sense, signals the remaking of higher education into a sphere of government in which the political world functions as its own type of board of directors. While the federal Department of Education is in the process of dissolution, the entire system of higher education is being reduced to the level of a federal department. This is part of an overall effort to curtail civil society and reign in its independence, in which scientists—initially those whose work concentrates on the environment or on global public health issues—have been a major focus.

Perhaps it is in this sense that we can understand the reluctance of university executives to confront directly what at first seemed to be scattershot criticisms aimed at various parts of their enterprises and why they did not push back harder at the assertion that criticism of Israeli policies is a form of antisemitism. It is not just that the higher education community was unprepared for the level and intensity of the criticisms, but that it was so highly vulnerable.

The top-tier institutions are the gonfaloniers of modern times, targets whose capture on the battlefield disorients the troops that follow their lead. To intimidate and diminish the top-tier institutions sends a message to the wider educational community about the punitive actions that non-compliance may bring. It effectively shifts the center of gravity throughout a major portion of society. In the conflict between the government and the educational community that depends on it, the latter can only lose, even if the degree to which it loses is still to be determined. The universities are a highly strategic and, as it turns out, easy target, ideologically and in terms of government expenses.

That the university community has also served as a base and breeding ground for liberal politics is still another reason for its subjugation.13 The overall result gestures in the direction of a shrunken and harshly repressed and repressive educational system that cowers to executive mandates because of the certainty that if not, legislative enactments will follow.14 Highly successful white males are the driving force behind all this. Their goal: a system that encourages no exceptions except for people who mimic themselves.

The world we have known is disappearing, an unraveling that would take considerable time to now reassemble. It is unclear whether and to what degree colleges and universities will remain as sanctuaries for the expression of ideas inconsonant with the political establishment. Perhaps some solace is to be found in this quip by Mother Jones, herself a fierce labor movement advocate at the turn of the nineteenth into the twentieth centuries. She was heard to say: “Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living.”

1. Between 1980 and 2022, the major changes were in the white population, which fell from 80 to 59 percent, while the Latine population increased dramatically from 7 to 19 percent. The Black population barely changed—from 12 to 13 percent, and the Asian population increased from 2 to 6 percent. National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics–Most Current Digest Tables, 2023, Tables 101.20.
2. Many versions of this poem exist. The version here is unabridged, translated from the original.
3. Alan Blinder, “Trump’s Battles With Colleges Could Change American Culture for a Generation.” The New York Times, March 20, 2025.
4. Cost & Aid | Princeton Admission.
5. Median annual income is just over $80,000 per year. These programs also take into account a family's wealth in property, business assets, etc., in complicated formulas that can mitigate qualifying on income alone. Stephanie Saul, “Harvard Will Make Tuition Free for More Students.” The New York Times, 17 March 2025; Peyton Beverford, Free Tuition for Low-Income Students | Appily. 21 March 2025; US Census Bureau, Income in the United States: 2023, 10 September 2024.
6. Unless indicated otherwise, all data is from the US Department of Education, College Scorecard, 23 April 2025. For each institution, see the various listings under: Costs, By Family Income; Financial Aid & Debt; Test Scores and Acceptance; Graduation & Retention; Typical Earnings; Campus Diversity.
7. At Princeton, the median debt for undergraduates when they finish their degrees is $10,320; at Rutgers-New Brunswick, it is $21,500.
8. Share of Federal Pell Grants recipients U.S. 2024 | Statista.
9. The situation a decade ago: “among ‘Ivy-Plus’ colleges (the eight Ivy League colleges, University of Chicago, Stanford, MIT, and Duke), more students come from families in the top 1% of the income distribution (14.5%) than the bottom half of the income distribution (13.5%).” Raj Chetty, John N. Friedman, Emmanuel Saez, Nicholas Turner, and Danny Yagan, “Mobility Report Cards: The Role of Colleges in Intergenerational Mobility,” National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w23618, July 2017, p. 1.
10. Not listed are: American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and Unknown. Numbers do not always equal 100 due to rounding or these absent categories.
11. National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics-Most Current Digest Tables, 2023, Tables 101.20, 306.10 (scroll down for the relevant data—based on 2022 totals, rounded up).
12. In the academic trilogy of race, class, and gender, many scholars sought a means to move the discussion of class from the theoretical, where it received extensive attention, to the concrete so that it could function similarly to the analyses of race and gender. Intersectionality has been one of the results, which nonetheless still leaves class undertheorized on a concrete level.
13. On voting patterns, see: Matt Grossmann and David A. Hopkins, Polarized Degrees: How the Diploma Divide and the Culture War Transformed American Politics. Cambridge University Press: 2024.
14. Isabelle Taft, “How Colleges Are Surveilling Students Now.” The New York Times, March 29, 2025.

Thanks to Jules David Bartkowski, Anne Lopes, and Paul Mattick for comments.

Gary Roth is the author of The Educated Underclass: Students and the Promise of Social Mobility (Pluto Press, 2019). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Troubled Exit and Reinvention

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

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

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

Academic Fallout

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

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

The University of Florida declined to comment.

The Bigger Picture

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

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

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 systems45.

---

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 capitalism45.

1. https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/attachments/48581154/097bc5b0-064b-4500-bcfe-cdf3fdb9c6e2/paste-3.txt
2. https://techcrunch.com/2025/06/02/salesforce-buys-moonhub-a-startup-building-ai-tools-for-hiring/
3. https://techstrong.ai/agentic-ai/salesforce-picks-up-moonhub-team-but-says-it-isnt-an-acquisition/
4. https://philarchive.org/archive/CHRDSA
5. https://phoebevmoore.wordpress.com/2024/05/13/workers-right-to-the-subject-the-social-relations-of-data-production/
6. https://economictimes.com/tech/artificial-intelligence/salesforce-acquires-ai-recruiting-startup-moonhub-weeks-after-informatica-deal/articleshow/121590582.cms
7. https://www.techi.com/salesforce-acquires-moonhub-ai-hiring/
8. https://www.maginative.com/article/salesforce-just-bought-a-stealthy-ai-hiring-startup-heres-why-it-matters/
9. https://www.moonhub.ai/moonhub-team-joins-salesforce
10. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/salesforce-buys-moonhub-startup-building-185543093.html
11. https://thelettertwo.com/2025/06/02/salesforce-snaps-up-moonhub-team-as-ai-hiring-arms-race-escalates/
12. https://www.academia.edu/69171494/FINANCING_PROGRAMSIN_THE_CONTEXT_OF_ARTIFICIAL_INTELLIGENCE_AT_THE_GLOBAL_LEVEL
13. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Dark-pools-:-the-rise-of-A.I.-trading-machines-and-Patterson/5995647eaf9ee62036054e06921febbb7cc18d79
14. https://journals.openedition.org/ardeth/646?lang=it
15. https://www.academia.edu/71441086/Algorithms_Creating_Paradoxes_of_Power_Explore_Exploit_Embed_Embalm?uc-sb-sw=4776224
16. https://densem.edu/HomePages/book-search/466732/IstitutoTecnicoTecnologicoParitarioFrancescoBaracca.pdf
17. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2053951716662897
18. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/pramod-gosavi-b32a71_salesforce-buys-moonhub-a-startup-building-activity-7335541612942434304-nfI8
19. https://www.salesforce.com/news/stories/salesforce-signs-definitive-agreement-to-acquire-convergence-ai/
20. https://booksrun.com/9780316414210-the-war-on-normal-people-the-truth-about-americas-disappearing-jobs-and-why-universal-basic-income-is-our-future-reprint-edition
21. https://visbanking.com/revolutionizing-financial-hiring-how-ai-powered-talent-tools-transform-recruitment/

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)

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. 

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.