PragerU and the Culture War: Manufacturing Myths in Higher Education and Beyond

In the evolving landscape of American media and education, PragerU stands out as a well-funded propaganda machine disguised as an educational institution. Despite the name, Prager University is not a university. It does not grant degrees, offer accredited courses, or submit to academic oversight. Instead, it produces short, emotionally charged videos designed to reshape young minds around a rigid conservative ideology—an ideology increasingly aligned with Christian nationalism, market fundamentalism, and historical denialism.

Founded in 2009 by talk radio host Dennis Prager, PragerU emerged during the rise of social media and deepening political polarization. The timing was ideal. With traditional civics education struggling and digital content consumption rising, PragerU began churning out five-minute videos purporting to teach the "real truth" about history, race, gender, economics, and science. These slickly produced segments claim to correct misinformation, but in reality they deliver a narrow worldview fueled by grievance, nostalgia, and moral panic.

PragerU content routinely distorts established historical and scientific knowledge. It reframes American slavery as a common global occurrence, rather than as a foundational atrocity that has shaped U.S. legal and economic systems to this day. It minimizes climate change, portraying it as exaggerated fearmongering driven by radical environmentalists, even as the scientific consensus grows increasingly dire. And it routinely dismisses systemic racism, patriarchy, and wealth inequality as myths invented by the political left to divide Americans.

This style of storytelling directly contradicts the evidence-based approaches found in the work of sociologist James Loewen and historian Howard Zinn. Loewen’s Lies My Teacher Told Me exposed how mainstream K–12 textbooks sanitize U.S. history by ignoring racism, class struggle, and colonialism. Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States took it further, reframing the American narrative through the voices of the marginalized—the enslaved, the working class, women, and the indigenous. While Loewen and Zinn sought to challenge students to think critically and question power, PragerU does the opposite. It seeks to reassure students that the status quo is righteous and that questioning it is dangerous.

PragerU’s rise also coincides with real, deeply rooted problems in American education. There are serious and measurable deficiencies in literacy, numeracy, and critical thinking among U.S. students and even adults. These educational gaps leave many people vulnerable to simplistic narratives and emotionally charged misinformation. PragerU does not aim to fill those gaps with rigorous content; it exploits them. Its materials demand little from viewers beyond ideological alignment. The videos offer no footnotes, no peer-reviewed sources, and no intellectual challenge—just certainty delivered with polish.

And yet, increasingly, these materials are being welcomed into public school classrooms. In states like Florida and Oklahoma, conservative lawmakers and school officials have approved or endorsed PragerU content as part of the curriculum. This insertion of ideologically driven material into state-sanctioned education is not just alarming—it’s part of a broader attempt to reshape how young people see their country and their place in it.

The broader culture war that PragerU is part of is not simply about liberal versus conservative. It’s about whether education should cultivate independent thinking and historical awareness—or obedient loyalty to a sanitized narrative. PragerU paints itself as a corrective to “leftist indoctrination,” but what it offers is another form of indoctrination: one that demands allegiance to a version of America that never existed, where racism was a glitch, climate change is hysteria, and capitalism is above critique.

Its media tactics are savvy. PragerU’s videos are short, colorful, and emotionally potent—perfectly crafted for young viewers raised on TikTok and YouTube. While teachers fight to hold students’ attention with limited resources, PragerU offers a packaged worldview that feels easy and affirming. But this ease comes at the cost of intellectual development. True learning requires struggle, contradiction, and evidence—not comforting stories that confirm one’s existing biases.

What’s missing from PragerU’s content is precisely what makes education meaningful: complexity, context, and the capacity to think beyond slogans. When students read Lies My Teacher Told Me or A People’s History, they may feel discomfort, but they also grow. They learn that history is not a patriotic myth but a contested and dynamic struggle over meaning and power.

To respond to PragerU’s growing reach, educators and the public must take the real problems in education seriously. Media literacy, civic education, and historical thinking should be reinforced, not removed. Students must be equipped not just with facts, but with the tools to evaluate competing narratives and sources of information. Schools and universities must resist pressure to adopt content that fails basic tests of intellectual honesty and academic rigor.

PragerU is not simply another voice in a pluralistic conversation. It is part of a movement to reduce education to ideological messaging. It thrives on a public that has been failed by underfunded schools, fractured media, and growing economic insecurity. But recognizing this reality does not mean surrendering to it.

If the goal is to prepare young people to navigate a complex world, we must choose truth over comfort, questioning over certainty, and education over indoctrination.

---

For more investigations into education and media, follow the Higher Education Inquirer.

Let’s Pretend We Didn’t See It Coming...Again

In the shadow of soaring tuition, crumbling public trust in higher education, and rising economic precarity, there lies a deeper and more structural crisis that rarely garners full public scrutiny: the massive and interconnected towers of global debt, financial speculation, and inflated asset prices. These are not just accounting numbers or Wall Street abstractions. They define the future economic prospects of students, working families, and institutions alike.

The Student Debt Crisis: A Generation in Chains

The U.S. student loan burden exceeds $1.7 trillion, with over 43 million borrowers caught in a slow-motion crisis. What was once framed as an “investment in the future” now shackles millions with little promise of upward mobility. Borrowers who never completed their degrees, disproportionately women and people of color, face default and damaged credit for pursuing what society told them was the American Dream.

Structural reform remains elusive. Meanwhile, for-profit and online colleges—backed by venture capital and private equity—have turned education into a high-yield debt machine, targeting vulnerable populations with aggressive marketing and poor outcomes.

Corporate Debt: Risk Hidden in Plain Sight

Less visible but equally dangerous is the mountain of corporate debt, especially in the United States. Nonfinancial corporate liabilities stood at $13.7 trillion by the end of 2024, with nearly $11.2 trillion in bonds alone. Globally, corporate bond markets exceed $35 trillion, fueled by cheap borrowing in the 2010s.

Now, with interest rates higher and consumer demand uneven, the refinancing of this debt poses real risk. The so-called “zombie corporations”—firms that can barely cover interest payments—continue to proliferate. Many of these companies exist not to innovate or produce value, but to service debt and enrich shareholders and executives through buybacks and dividends. If the cost of borrowing rises further or economic conditions deteriorate, defaults could ripple across the economy.

Real Estate: The Price of Shelter Becomes a Crisis

Add to this the relentless surge in real estate prices, and the picture grows even more distorted. Over the last decade, home prices have outpaced income growth in most U.S. cities. The median home price now hovers near $420,000, with affordability reaching historic lows for younger buyers and renters.

Much like student loans, housing has been sold as a path to security—yet that security has become increasingly speculative. Real estate, once tied to the fundamentals of shelter and location, is now driven by institutional investors, foreign capital, and short-term rental platforms. As interest rates rise, many homeowners are “locked in” by low mortgage rates, further tightening supply and inflating prices.

Meanwhile, rent burdens grow heavier, particularly for younger Americans already saddled with student debt. The dream of homeownership is becoming a fantasy for a generation priced out by financialization, debt servitude, and institutional hoarding of housing stock.

Derivatives: A Colossal Casino with Limited Visibility

Above and beyond tangible debt instruments, the global financial system is entangled in a derivatives market with a notional value of more than $700 trillion. While the actual at-risk value (gross market value) is closer to $12 to $15 trillion, this market remains opaque, concentrated in the hands of a few major banks and financial institutions.

Derivatives tied to interest rates, currencies, and credit risk can provide stability—or amplify chaos. Despite regulatory reforms after the 2008 financial crisis, significant exposure still exists outside the purview of public accountability. The collapse of one key counterparty or the mispricing of a large position could trigger a systemic event, especially in an economy already weighed down by interconnected liabilities.

Cryptocurrency Speculation: Financial Innovation or Digital Tulipmania?

Add to this volatile mix the rise and decline (and rise again) of speculative cryptocurrencies, which at their 2021 peak reached a market capitalization of over $3 trillion, before crashing and partially rebounding. While blockchain technology may hold potential, the crypto economy—driven by memes, manipulation, and venture-funded hype—has largely functioned as an unregulated financial casino.

Retail investors, including young people and students, were encouraged by social media and celebrity endorsements to "HODL" assets like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and countless “altcoins.” Many suffered significant losses, with little to no recourse. Yet crypto continues to draw institutional interest and remains deeply entwined with tech capital and libertarian ideology—especially among Silicon Valley’s elite.

A System Built on Fragility

Taken together, these layers of financial risk—student debt, corporate borrowing, real estate bubbles, derivatives, and speculative crypto markets—form a fragile scaffold upon which the broader economy, including the higher education system, rests. When one pillar shakes, the others reverberate.

In this climate, universities are not just victims—they are participants. Many rely on debt financing, engage in financial derivatives, invest endowments in risky markets, and partner with speculative online education companies backed by venture capital. Meanwhile, they continue to promote a narrative of educational ROI (return on investment) that looks increasingly outdated and unethical in light of the risks young people are forced to assume.

What Comes Next?

As global financial risks mount and faith in higher education erodes, the U.S. faces a critical juncture. Will it address these underlying structural instabilities, or continue down a path of compounding debt and speculation?

Without systemic reform—in education, housing, finance, and economic policy—students and workers will remain trapped in an exploitative cycle, and the broader economy will lurch from one crisis to the next. It's time to stop pretending these risks are isolated. They are interwoven. And they are unsustainable.

---

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to investigate these intersections of finance, education, and inequality in the months ahead.

Liberty University Targeting Vets for Robocollege Master's Degrees

Liberty University, one of the largest Christian universities in the world, has built an educational empire by promoting conservative values and offering flexible online degree programs to hundreds of thousands of students. But behind the pious branding and patriotic marketing lies a troubling pattern: Liberty University Online has become a master’s degree debt factory, churning out credentials of questionable value while generating billions in student loan debt.

Massive Debt Load: New Federal Data

The Higher Education Inquirer has recently received a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) response (25-01939-F) confirming the staggering financial footprint of Liberty University’s loan-driven model. According to the data, more than 290,000 Liberty University student loan debtors collectively owe over $8 billion in federal student loan debt.

This figure places Liberty among the nation’s top producers of student debt, especially at the graduate level. The data underscores the scale of Liberty’s online operation—and raises serious concerns about the value students are receiving in return for their investment.

From Moral Majority to Mass Marketing

Founded in 1971 by televangelist Jerry Falwell Sr., Liberty University was created to train “Champions for Christ.” In the 2000s, the university reinvented itself through online education, growing from a modest evangelical college into a global mega-university. Today, nearly 95,000 students are enrolled online—most of them nontraditional learners pursuing graduate credentials in fields like education, business, counseling, and theology.

This transformation was powered by digital marketing, religious rhetoric, and direct appeals to working adults and veterans. But what has emerged is a high-volume, low-engagement “robocollege” model that has led to massive student debt and mixed outcomes.

A For-Profit Model in Nonprofit Clothing

Though it operates as a nonprofit, Liberty functions much like a for-profit college. Its online programs generate an estimated $1 billion in annual revenue, mostly through federal student aid and military education benefits.

Students are funneled into fast-tracked, eight-week master’s programs that promise convenience but often fail to deliver quality or post-graduate opportunity. According to U.S. Department of Education data, median graduate student debt at Liberty ranges from $40,000 to $70,000, while returns on investment—measured in earnings and job placement—are questionable at best.

Robocollege for Warriors

Liberty markets itself as a military-friendly institution and has enrolled over 40,000 military-affiliated students in recent years. Through patriotic branding and targeted discounts, the university appeals to service members seeking affordable, faith-based education.

However, Liberty does not extend military tuition discounts to LGBTQ spouses or partners, effectively excluding same-sex families from benefits offered to heterosexual military couples. This discriminatory policy contradicts federal nondiscrimination principles but has gone unchallenged by any federal oversight agency, including the U.S. Department of Education, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The absence of accountability underscores a broader pattern: religious institutions like Liberty continue to receive billions in public funds while applying selective moral frameworks to exclude marginalized communities.

Liberty’s discriminatory practices add insult to injury for LGBTQ military students and their families, who are asked to sacrifice for their country but denied equal access to educational support.

Automated, Ideologically Charged Learning

Liberty’s academic model is highly automated and often superficial. Online coursework typically consists of textbook readings, quizzes, and templated discussion posts—with little direct instruction or feedback from faculty. Many students report that religious ideology is embedded in even technical fields, from business to engineering.

“They put scripture in every assignment—sometimes where it makes no sense,” said one former student.
“It’s more like an indoctrination pipeline than a graduate school,” added a military spouse who withdrew from the program.

Liberty’s online aviation program came under fire in 2023 when the VA suspended GI Bill payments due to quality concerns. Veterans were left stranded mid-program, forced to pause their education or self-fund tuition after losing federal support.

A Dual Identity: Race and Class Divides

Liberty’s racial and socioeconomic divides are stark. Its residential campus in Lynchburg, Virginia, is 74% white, with just 4% of students identifying as Black, 5% Latino, and 2% Asian or Pacific Islander. The number of African American students on campus has declined in recent years, even as national college demographics diversify.

This imbalance reflects Liberty’s historical roots: founder Jerry Falwell Sr. publicly defended racial segregation and opposed civil rights legislation in the 1960s. While Liberty has distanced itself from these positions rhetorically, the legacy remains visible in the composition and culture of the on-campus student body.

In contrast, Liberty University Online (LUO) is much more diverse. In 2017, only 51% of LUO undergraduates were white, and 15.4% identified as Black. Many LUO students are older, work full-time, and represent the multiracial, working-class America that Liberty’s campus culture does not reflect or represent.

Exploiting Faith and Patriotism

Liberty’s marketing presents education as a spiritual and patriotic calling—especially appealing to military families and first-generation students seeking purpose and stability. But behind the inspirational messaging lies a hard financial truth: many students are left with heavy debt and degrees that may not align with licensure standards or employer expectations.

Liberty pours resources into advertising and retention but spends comparatively little on faculty pay, student advising, or academic support. Complaints about misleading information, difficulty transferring credits, and job placement struggles are common.

Lack of Oversight, Political Protection

Despite numerous scandals—including leadership resignations, sexual misconduct coverups, and allegations of financial mismanagement—Liberty continues to operate with limited regulatory scrutiny. Its nonprofit status and political influence, particularly within conservative circles, shield it from the kind of oversight faced by for-profit colleges.

During the Trump administration, higher education accountability was dramatically weakened, giving Liberty and similar institutions near-total freedom to expand unchecked. That permissive environment remains largely intact.

A Cautionary Tale in Christian Capitalism

Liberty University’s rise reveals a troubling convergence of religion, profit, and political power. What’s marketed as moral education is often little more than credential inflation funded by public debt. And for students of color, LGBTQ families, and military veterans, the promises of upward mobility too often end in disappointment—and financial ruin.

With more than 290,000 Liberty student loan debtors owing over $8 billion, the scale of Liberty’s impact on the nation’s student debt crisis is undeniable. Yet its discriminatory practices, especially against LGBTQ military families, go unanswered by federal authorities.

For an institution claiming to train "Champions for Christ," Liberty’s actions tell a different story—one where profit is paramount, and equity is an afterthought.

---

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue investigating Liberty University and similar institutions, particularly those profiting from vulnerable populations under the banners of faith, freedom, and flag.

A Growing Wall: International Students from Dozens of Nations Face Potential U.S. Entry Ban

Under President Donald Trump’s second term, U.S. immigration policy has taken another dramatic and punitive turn—this time targeting international students not only from historically marginalized nations but also from America’s largest educational partners. A leaked State Department memo dated June 14 warns that 36 additional countries, most of them in Africa, face imminent visa restrictions unless they meet stringent new compliance standards within 60 days. The consequences could be devastating—not just for prospective students, but for those already here, many of whom have been detained, deported, or left the country in fear.

While the list in the memo includes countries such as Nigeria, Egypt, Ghana, Ethiopia, and Cameroon—nations that send thousands of students to the United States—what is already unfolding extends beyond the African continent. Students from China and India, the top two sources of international enrollment in the U.S., have also found themselves caught in an increasingly hostile environment.

Hundreds of students from China and India have already been detained, interrogated, and in some cases deported at airports across the U.S., even when holding valid visas. Customs and Border Protection agents have reportedly cited vague “national security concerns” or accused students of being affiliated with banned organizations, including universities linked to Chinese military or surveillance activity. In some instances, students have been denied entry without access to legal representation, held overnight, and put on planes home.

In April, multiple Indian graduate students—some with full scholarships—were refused entry at U.S. airports and summarily deported. Others have chosen to abandon their programs altogether, fearing further harassment or immigration complications. The same pattern is playing out among Chinese students, especially those in STEM fields, who are now seen by some U.S. officials as potential security threats.

Meanwhile, the State Department’s June 14 memo sets its sights on a broad new swath of countries. If restrictions go into effect, they will impact not only future student visa applicants but also those currently enrolled in the U.S. who may soon find themselves unable to renew visas, travel for family emergencies, or continue their studies without disruption.

The original June 4 proclamation—Proclamation 10949—already banned entry from countries including Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Sudan, and Yemen. But the new, expanded list includes 36 additional countries such as Angola, Benin, Cambodia, Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Malawi, Niger, Syria, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. Many of these nations have only a modest number of students in the U.S., but several—like Nigeria, Ghana, Egypt, and Ethiopia—have longstanding educational ties and large student populations.

Even institutions such as the University of Pennsylvania have acknowledged disruptions. More than 200 of their international students and scholars are reportedly affected by the current travel bans. Administrators have warned students from targeted countries not to leave the U.S. for fear they won't be allowed to return. Legal clinics and international offices are overwhelmed, and some campuses are quietly reassessing how much they can rely on foreign enrollment moving forward.

For many universities, the timing couldn’t be worse. Shrinking domestic enrollment, financial shortfalls, and growing political hostility toward diversity, equity, and global engagement have already strained budgets and missions. International students, who often pay full tuition, have long been seen as a financial lifeline for underfunded institutions. Now, that lifeline is fraying—if not being intentionally cut.

The Trump administration’s framing of these changes centers on alleged concerns over visa overstays, document fraud, and national security. But critics argue the administration is using fear to further a nationalist agenda—one that openly targets Black and brown-majority nations, and casts suspicion on even the most vetted international applicants.

The damage to the reputation of American higher education may be incalculable. Canada, Australia, Germany, and the UK have already begun to benefit from the perception that the U.S. is hostile to foreign students. University partnerships, research initiatives, and global talent recruitment are all at risk. So too is the decades-long project of soft diplomacy that American education once represented.

And the fear is real. Stories of students being detained or deported without warning are now common in diaspora communities. International student applications to U.S. universities are dropping. Families abroad are beginning to steer their children away from what once was the gold standard of global education.

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to track these developments. With the stroke of a pen, thousands of academic journeys could be disrupted or ended altogether. For now, uncertainty hangs over a system that once claimed to be open to the world—and now looks increasingly closed off.

#NoKings

 #NoKings

A 'No Kings' protest organizer says training around nonviolence and de-escalation is key (CNN)

 

Michigan House GOP Targets Universities with Endowment Penalties, DEI Bans, and Political Culture War Demands

Michigan’s Republican-controlled House Appropriations Committee has introduced a higher education budget that dramatically reconfigures funding for the state’s public universities. Behind the numbers lies a sweeping attempt to reshape the role of public institutions, both fiscally and ideologically, with harsh penalties for elite universities, restrictions on diversity programming, and mandates that reflect the national right-wing culture war playbook.

At the center of the controversy are the University of Michigan and Michigan State University—flagship institutions with global reputations and sizable endowments. While these universities have contributed to Michigan’s prestige and research profile, critics—including Republicans in the legislature—accuse them of abandoning their public mission by favoring out-of-state and international students over Michigan residents. This shift, driven in part by the pursuit of higher tuition revenues, has fueled resentment in communities that see their tax dollars supporting institutions that are increasingly inaccessible to their own children.

The proposed budget slashes operational funding for universities by $828.1 million, while offering a modest 3.3% increase to the overall higher education budget through one-time funding. But those topline figures mask an aggressive redistribution of funds and a punitive new framework targeting institutions based on their financial assets and adherence to partisan values.

The University of Michigan, with an endowment exceeding $10 billion, would see a 75% reduction in state appropriations under the new formula. Michigan State University, with an endowment between $1 billion and $5 billion, would face a 50% cut. House Republicans argue that these universities have received more than their fair share for too long and that the money should be redirected to the state’s 13 other public universities. State Rep. Gregg Markkanen (R-Hancock), who chairs the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Higher Education and Community Colleges, said the plan was about fairness—"trimming the fat" from elite campuses and investing in institutions that serve more Michigan students.

But the budget goes further than just redistributing funds. It imposes a maze of ideological requirements on public universities, with financial penalties tied to compliance. Schools that allow transgender women to participate in women’s sports would forfeit 5% of their investment funds. Institutions that host events or provide campus spaces limited by sex or race would be similarly penalized. Universities would also be required to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision banning race-conscious admissions policies—or risk losing 25% of their state funding—even though Michigan voters banned affirmative action in 2006.

Additional boilerplate language requires universities to submit detailed data to the state, including information about the number and citizenship status of international students, the residency status of all enrollees, and the contact information for undocumented students. The budget also enforces a cap on tuition increases and investment fund growth, effectively restricting financial flexibility even as institutions face rising costs.

While some Republicans have framed these measures as a way to support in-state students and force elite universities to serve the public more equitably, critics see a Trojan horse for ideological control. State Rep. Matt Maddock (R-Milford) openly celebrated the plan as a means of cutting off “woke” universities and rewarding “non-woke” ones.

Dan Hurley, CEO of the Michigan Association of State Universities, expressed deep concern about the unpredictability of the proposed funding structure and its long-term viability. The reliance on one-time funding, coupled with sweeping operational restrictions, raises serious questions about how universities will be able to maintain programming, faculty, and student support services. “We need to have a much better understanding of what the thinking is, what the plan is to maintain a healthy, vibrant public university ecosystem,” Hurley said.

The budget also appears to stand on shaky legal ground. Provisions targeting transgender students and undocumented individuals may violate Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, which protects against discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. But when asked about these contradictions, Rep. Ann Bollin (R-Brighton), chair of the Appropriations Committee, brushed aside concerns, instead reiterating culture war talking points. “We don’t want to see boys in girls’ sports,” she said. “That’s universal.”

Bollin also defended the endowment penalties and cuts to DEI programming by saying universities should “mind their budgets just like the rest of us.” Yet universities operate at a far different scale and purpose—serving tens of thousands of students, conducting state-funded research, training medical professionals, and contributing billions to Michigan’s economy. Demanding they operate like small businesses ignores these fundamental differences.

Underlying all of this is a deepening divide over the mission of public universities. Are they to be engines of opportunity for in-state students, regardless of background? Or should they serve as prestige institutions chasing out-of-state dollars and global rankings? In recent decades, both the University of Michigan and Michigan State have increased their enrollment of non-resident and international students, often to compensate for decades of stagnant or declining state funding. That trend has made them less accessible to working-class Michigan families—one of the very grievances now being weaponized in the House GOP’s budget.

But rather than increasing support for access or reducing tuition, the budget offers a punitive and highly politicized approach that undermines the autonomy and inclusive mission of higher education. With negotiations now moving to the Michigan Senate and the governor’s office, public universities face an uncertain future—not only in terms of funding, but in how deeply political agendas will be allowed to infiltrate academic life.

If passed in its current form, the budget may not just reshape Michigan’s higher education system—it could become a model for similar efforts in other states. The fight in Michigan, in other words, is not just about dollars. It’s about who public universities are for—and who gets to decide.

The American Dream Deferred: Asian Students Reconsider US Higher Education Amid Trump-Era Visa Crackdown

A recent investigative report from the South China Morning Post has brought international attention to a growing crisis in American higher education—one that many U.S. colleges and universities have been reluctant to confront publicly. Amid a second Trump administration and an escalating crackdown on immigration, thousands of Asian students are rethinking or abandoning their long-held dreams of a U.S. education.

For decades, the promise of an American degree symbolized more than academic excellence. It represented freedom, opportunity, and a foothold into a more prosperous life. That promise is now being eroded—not because of tuition hikes or student debt, but due to political hostility, administrative unpredictability, and nativist policies that treat international students more as geopolitical pawns than valued contributors.

As reported by Kimberly Lim, Nicole Cheah, Biman Mukherji, and Hadi Azmi for the SCMP, students from countries like Myanmar, China, Singapore, and Malaysia are finding themselves in an increasingly precarious position. Student visa interviews are being suspended. University programs, including those at Harvard, have had their certification revoked and later reinstated only under pressure. Students are being warned that travel abroad could mean forfeiting their education permanently.

The Trump administration’s targeting of Chinese nationals—who comprise nearly a quarter of all international students in the U.S.—is part of a broader xenophobic wave. From digital surveillance of visa applicants’ social media accounts to travel bans that now include nations like Myanmar, the message is unmistakable: “You are not welcome here.”

While U.S. institutions still top global rankings—with Harvard, MIT, and Stanford dominating the QS World University Rankings—reputation alone may no longer be enough. As one student in Singapore told SCMP, “Uncertainty has costs.” Students are not just questioning whether they can complete their education—they’re wondering if they’ll be deported mid-semester, or whether their parents’ financial sacrifices will be wasted.

Alternative destinations are gaining traction. Singapore, the UK, Australia, Canada, and even countries like China and Japan are offering pathways that don’t involve the same risks. Malaysia’s Majlis Amanah Rakyat has already redirected its indigenous scholarship students away from the U.S. toward less volatile environments.

U.S. higher education has long depended on the tuition and intellectual contributions of international students. In 2023–24 alone, they added $43.8 billion to the American economy and supported over 378,000 jobs. The sector's economic value aside, these students enrich classrooms, expand cross-cultural understanding, and bolster the country’s soft power. But these gains are being squandered by political short-sightedness and strategic cruelty.

The Higher Education Inquirer has previously reported on the structural rot in U.S. higher education—skyrocketing tuition, exploitative labor practices, administrative bloat—but this emerging international student crisis underscores a moral and strategic failing at the national level. We are watching in real time as the U.S. forfeits its role as a global education leader.

Yes, as some education consultants told the SCMP, the appeal of U.S. credentials will likely survive this political moment. But the long-term damage may be harder to repair. Trust, once broken, is not easily restored.

The Trump administration has made its vision of higher education and international exchange abundantly clear: exclusion over inclusion, suspicion over scholarship, nationalism over knowledge.

If this is what “America First” looks like in the classroom, students around the world are wisely deciding it may not be worth the risk.

—
The Higher Education Inquirer continues to monitor and report on how authoritarian and neoliberal forces are reshaping global education systems, with consequences that extend far beyond the campus gates.

The Newest Need for Underground College Newspapers

In an era dominated by social media noise, shrinking professional newsrooms, and increasing institutional secrecy, the revival and reinvention of college and university newspapers may be more necessary than ever. While many campus publications have suffered cutbacks or collapsed entirely due to budget constraints, digital overload, and administrative pressure, the need for independent student journalism remains urgent—perhaps even existential.

A Vanishing Watchdog

Over the last two decades, local news in the United States has been gutted. College towns, often reliant on regional papers, have lost a critical layer of scrutiny. In parallel, many campus newspapers—once robust training grounds for journalists and fierce watchdogs of university governance—have withered. Some have been absorbed into PR arms of institutions, with student journalists pressured or co-opted into serving administrative narratives.

Yet as colleges and universities face profound challenges—rising tuition, falling enrollment, mounting debt, labor unrest, and political scrutiny—the lack of independent, on-the-ground reporting has created an information vacuum. In this environment, truth becomes malleable, accountability erodes, and institutional failures are too often buried in silence.

A New Generation, A New Role

Despite setbacks, a growing number of student journalists are pushing back. At the University of Southern California, The Daily Trojan exposed administrative mismanagement related to sexual assault. At Northwestern, The Daily Northwestern has tackled controversies involving faculty conduct and institutional transparency. And at Columbia University, The Columbia Daily Spectator has taken on the university’s relationship with gentrification in Harlem.

What distinguishes these publications isn't just their resilience—it's their refusal to accept a narrow definition of campus journalism. Today’s best student reporters are not only covering student government meetings or campus events—they're digging into real estate deals, institutional investments, labor practices, and even international connections, from Chinese academic partnerships to private equity control of online education.

The Decline and Co-optation

However, these examples are exceptions. Across the country, hundreds of student newspapers have been diminished or dissolved. Many that survive are chronically underfunded or rely on the goodwill of the same administrations they should be scrutinizing. Others have been folded into university communication departments, effectively becoming tools of branding and enrollment marketing.

Some student journalists now face soft censorship: the pressure not to publish controversial stories that could harm a university’s reputation or donor relations. Others deal with harder forms—budget threats, advisor firings, or limited access to information. In some cases, entire newspapers have been shuttered without consultation with students or faculty.

Why They Matter Now More Than Ever

Today’s higher education system is in flux. Tuition costs and student debt are under scrutiny. Title IX enforcement, labor rights for adjuncts and graduate workers, and diversity policies are politically weaponized. Public confidence in higher ed is declining, while financial mismanagement and administrative bloat continue largely unchecked.

Who will report on these issues if not the students on the ground?

Student newspapers offer more than just training—they’re democratic institutions. They give voice to marginalized students, expose inequities, and hold those in power accountable. In some communities, they’re the only media outlet asking tough questions. They also play a critical role in informing not just students but alumni, faculty, staff, and policymakers.

What Must Be Done

The revival of college newspapers requires real support—not just from universities, but from alumni, independent media, philanthropic organizations, and readers. This support must come without strings attached. Autonomy is the bedrock of journalism.

Foundations that support civic engagement and press freedom should consider earmarking funds specifically for independent campus journalism. Public universities should be held accountable for supporting—rather than stifling—student voices. Faculty allies can advocate for journalism programs and protect the academic freedom of student reporters.

In this new media age, campus newspapers must also evolve: adopting hybrid revenue models, building investigative teams, collaborating with local and national outlets, and using digital tools to reach broader audiences.

Preserving Democracy on and Off Campus  

The new need for college and university newspapers is not simply about preserving an academic tradition. It’s about preserving democratic infrastructure in an increasingly privatized and opaque sector of American life. If students are told that higher education is meant to prepare them to lead and serve in a democratic society, then empowering them to investigate, critique, and question their institutions is not optional—it is essential.

The Higher Education Inquirer stands with those student journalists who refuse to be silenced, and who still believe that the truth—even on campus—is worth fighting for.

Harvard and Yale Selling Off Private Equity Stakes

Harvard and Yale—titans of American higher education and longtime bellwethers of endowment strategy—are quietly offloading billions in private equity holdings. These moves, confirmed through multiple reports and market insiders, signal a significant shift in institutional investing, with potential ripple effects across the higher ed landscape and beyond.

The two Ivies, boasting the largest university endowments in the world ($50.7 billion for Harvard, $40.7 billion for Yale as of 2024), have long championed the “Yale model” of endowment investing: high allocations to illiquid assets such as private equity, venture capital, hedge funds, and real assets like timberland and oil. But the bloom is off the rose.

From Darling to Dilemma

Private equity once promised high returns, portfolio diversification, and access to elite deals not available to public investors. In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, as traditional markets stagnated, institutions doubled down on alternative investments. For years, this strategy paid off—at least on paper.

But cracks have been forming.

Private equity valuations have come under scrutiny as deal activity has slowed, interest rates have risen, and exits through IPOs and acquisitions have dried up. Many private equity funds are now sitting on aging portfolios—so-called "zombie funds"—that have not returned capital in years. Meanwhile, limited partners like universities are increasingly liquidity-constrained, especially as operating costs rise and tuition-dependent revenues remain fragile.

Harvard Management Company and Yale’s Investment Office, once aggressive buyers, are now sellers on the secondary market. Reports indicate both institutions are using intermediaries to quietly market stakes in private equity funds—often at discounts of 10% to 20%, or more, below net asset value.

A Broader Retreat?

This retreat isn’t just about balance sheet management. It’s a broader reassessment of what endowments should be doing—and what risks they should be bearing.

Universities face mounting scrutiny over their massive, tax-advantaged endowments and their relationships with Wall Street. Critics question why institutions with social missions are entangled in opaque, leveraged, and sometimes predatory industries. Private equity firms, after all, have been deeply involved in sectors like healthcare, housing, for-profit education, and prison services—areas where returns often come at the cost of public welfare.

Moreover, the mismatch between the long lock-up periods of private equity investments and the growing need for financial flexibility is becoming more apparent. University administrators now must navigate volatile geopolitical conditions, student protests over divestment, and uncertain federal funding. Liquidity matters more than it did a decade ago.

The End of the Yale Model?

David Swensen, Yale’s late investment chief, revolutionized university finance with his embrace of illiquid alternatives. But times have changed. While the strategy made Yale’s endowment a model for copycats, today it may represent an outdated orthodoxy.

Harvard and Yale’s pivot may be the beginning of the end for the “Yale model” as we know it. Other institutions—especially smaller endowments that tried to mimic the Ivies—may find themselves stuck with toxic assets, unable to unload them without taking steep losses.

In fact, some mid-tier and small colleges may have to choose between covering operational costs and holding on to underperforming private equity positions. For those with limited financial cushions, the fallout could be existential.

Higher Ed’s Reckoning with Risk

The endowment shift also raises a philosophical question: What is the purpose of university wealth?

As elite schools back away from the riskier corners of Wall Street, perhaps it's time for a broader reckoning—about not just how universities invest, but why. Should institutions built on ideals of knowledge, access, and social progress be hand-in-glove with industries known for wage suppression, regulatory arbitrage, and asset stripping?

Harvard and Yale may be late to that moral realization. But their financial pivot is a sign that even the most powerful players can’t ignore reality forever.

In the age of growing student debt, declining public trust, and ballooning inequality, selling off a few private equity funds is a small move. But it could be the start of a larger shift—one where higher education finally begins to question whether its financial strategies align with its educational mission.

—

If you have insights into university endowment strategies or are a whistleblower inside the private equity world, contact us confidentially at Higher Education Inquirer. 

Navigating the Storm: Existential Questions for Higher Education and the Nation

“Who are we? Where are we going? Where do we come from?” These existential questions are not luxuries in times of crisis—they are necessities. And as the storms of political, social, and environmental upheaval grow darker, they demand our full attention.

For many in the United States, especially younger generations, the future feels bleak. Student loan debt weighs down tens of millions. Meaningless, low-wage, precarious employment—what anthropologist David Graeber called “bullsh*t jobs”—dominates the landscape, even for the college educated. Higher education, once touted as the great equalizer, has increasingly functioned as a sorting mechanism that reinforces class division rather than dismantling it.

This is not accidental. It is the consequence of more than a half century of growing inequality, fueled by tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, union busting, and the privatization of public goods. Since the 1970s, wages for working people have stagnated, while the top one percent has consolidated unimaginable wealth and power. Higher education has both suffered from and contributed to this shift: as public funding declined, universities increasingly turned to corporate partnerships, tuition hikes, student loans, and contingent labor to survive. In doing so, they have often replicated the very inequalities they claim to challenge.

Instead of building an informed and empowered citizenry, the modern university too often churns out debt-saddled consumers, precarious workers, and disillusioned graduates. The idea of education as a public good has been replaced by the logic of the market—branding, metrics, debt financing, and labor flexibility.

Meanwhile, U.S. politics offers little solace. We are caught between the reactionary authoritarianism of Trumpism and the managerial neoliberalism of the Democratic establishment. Both forces have proven inadequate in confronting systemic inequality, environmental collapse, and imperial overreach. Instead, they compete to maintain the illusion of normalcy while conditions deteriorate.

Internationally, the collapse of moral leadership is most evident in the ongoing genocide in Palestine. Backed by billions in U.S. aid and political cover, the Israeli military has killed tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza and displaced countless more. Hospitals, schools, and entire neighborhoods have been leveled. On college campuses across the U.S., students and faculty who dare to speak out against this atrocity have faced surveillance, censorship, arrests, and administrative repression. At a moment when moral clarity should be the minimum, too many institutions of higher learning have chosen complicity.

This convergence of global injustice and domestic repression raises urgent questions for academia. What is the role of the university in a world marked by war, inequality, and ecological collapse? What values will guide us through the storm?

The answer begins with honesty. We must recognize that higher education is not separate from society’s failures—it is entangled in them. But that also means it can be part of the solution. Colleges and universities can serve as spaces of resistance, reflection, and regeneration—but only if they reject their alignment with empire, capital, and white supremacy.

Where do we come from? From resistance: from student uprisings, civil rights sit-ins, anti-apartheid divestment, labor organizing, and community building. From people who believed—and still believe—that education should serve justice, not profit.

Where are we going? That depends on whether we are willing to confront power, abandon illusions, and build institutions that are democratic, transparent, and rooted in the needs of the many rather than the few.

The future is uncertain. The storm is here. But history is not finished. A more humane and equitable society remains possible—if we have the courage to demand it.

Ambow Education's Latest Move Raises Red Flags—A Second Warning to Colorado State University

On June 11, Ambow Education Holding Ltd. (NYSE American: AMBO) announced the appointment of James Bartholomew as its new president, emphasizing his leadership experience at DeVry University and Adtalem Global Education. While this move is being framed as part of a bold pivot toward global expansion through its hybrid learning platform, HybriU, the deeper reality of Ambow’s operations suggests that institutions like Colorado State University (CSU) should proceed with extreme caution.

Ambow Education is no stranger to controversy. In May 2022, The Higher Education Inquirer began investigating the company after credible tips about its mismanagement of Bay State College in Boston. The Massachusetts Attorney General had already fined the school in 2020 for misleading students. By August 2023, Bay State College closed abruptly, leaving behind a mess for students and staff. Throughout this time, Ambow operated with an alarming level of opacity, raising concerns among journalists, regulators, and public officials—including Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Ayanna Pressley.

Ambow’s financial practices and leadership structure have remained elusive, with lingering ties to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The company sold its PRC-based assets in 2022 and relocated to a small office in Cupertino, California, but its auditor remains based in China, and it has expressed interest in projects in Morocco and Tunisia involving Chinese-affiliated partners. The proverb about fishing in murky waters aptly describes how Ambow has operated in both Chinese and American markets.

Now, Ambow is promoting HybriU, a “phygital” platform it claims is revolutionizing education and corporate communication. Marketed heavily at events like CES and ASU-GSV, HybriU has been linked to a $1.3 million contract with a small firm in Singapore, but no major U.S. clients have been named. Visuals from the company’s website include stock images, and there’s no publicly available evidence that HybriU is delivering measurable results in any real-world education setting. The platform’s “OOOK” (One-on-One Knowledge) technology was first introduced in China in 2021, but it has yet to prove itself in American classrooms.

James Bartholomew’s appointment appears to be aimed at lending credibility to the HybriU initiative. However, his background warrants a closer look. DeVry University, where Bartholomew previously served as CEO, was embroiled in a long list of scandals, including a $100 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission in 2016 for deceptive advertising practices. These included inflated job placement claims and misleading earnings expectations for graduates. The Department of Education also scrutinized DeVry for poor student loan repayment metrics and aggressive recruiting tactics.

At Adtalem Global Education—DeVry’s former parent company—similar concerns persisted. Offshore medical schools under Adtalem’s umbrella, such as Ross University and American University of the Caribbean, were criticized for high tuition, student debt, and low U.S. residency placement rates. The company spent years lobbying against federal gainful employment regulations that were designed to protect students from predatory institutions. While Bartholomew may not have initiated these practices, he held leadership roles during a time when the institutions were navigating declining trust, financial turbulence, and increasing regulatory scrutiny.

Against this backdrop, reports have emerged that Colorado State University is considering a partnership with Ambow to implement the HybriU platform. On the surface, this might seem like a step toward innovation and flexibility in digital learning. But such a partnership could expose CSU to national security and data privacy risks, regulatory backlash, reputational damage, and questionable academic outcomes.

Given Ambow’s historical ties to the PRC, questions have been raised about the possibility of exposing sensitive university data to foreign surveillance or influence. CSU is a major research university with partnerships across science, defense, and technology. Even the perception that its digital infrastructure could be compromised could undermine public trust and jeopardize government grants and contracts.

The regulatory landscape is also increasingly cautious when it comes to foreign influence, particularly from China, in American higher education. Federal agencies have warned about the risks of partnerships that could compromise institutional independence or data integrity. Entering into a relationship with a firm like Ambow could place CSU under increased scrutiny or spark political backlash.

From a pedagogical perspective, HybriU is unproven. It has yet to demonstrate any significant results in U.S. education settings, and its claims are not substantiated by independent data. Adopting a platform without a strong record could endanger CSU’s teaching mission and student learning experiences at a time when the credibility of online education remains fragile.

Historically, investors and institutions have backed away from Ambow. The company was delisted from the NYSE in 2014 following accounting fraud allegations and shareholder lawsuits. It has struggled to maintain financial health and transparency. Its last remaining U.S. college, NewSchool of Architecture and Design in San Diego, has just 280 students and is currently under Heightened Cash Monitoring (HCM2) by the U.S. Department of Education. Lawsuits in San Diego allege non-payment of rent and unpaid compensation to the school’s former president. 

Meanwhile, Ambow has commissioned favorable research reports—like one from Argus Research—even though its spending on research and development remains remarkably low, at only $100,000 per quarter. Its current auditor, Prouden CPA, is new to the company’s books and based in China. Whether Ambow’s next annual report will bring clarity or further confusion remains to be seen.

For these reasons, The Higher Education Inquirer urges the leadership of Colorado State University to approach Ambow with skepticism and perform exhaustive due diligence. The CSU community deserves full transparency regarding Ambow’s ownership, financial practices, and data handling policies. Decisions should be made in consultation with cybersecurity experts, faculty, IT professionals, and government advisors. Alternative domestic edtech providers should be considered—especially those that are accountable, proven, and aligned with CSU’s mission.

At a time when public trust in higher education is strained and geopolitical tensions are high, it is not enough to adopt flashy technology for the sake of appearance. Colorado State University—and the taxpayers who support it—deserve better than an experiment based on unproven claims and a troubling history. CSU should reconsider any move forward with Ambow, before it finds itself entangled in another education debacle disguised as innovation.

Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (Department of Education Partnership Grants)

 

Documents from Education Department

Matching Documents Education Department Notices Applications for New Awards: Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (Partnership Grants); Correction FR Document: 2025-10649 Citation: 90 FR 24601 PDF Pages 24601-24603 (3 pages) Permalink Abstract: On November 20, 2024, the Department of Education (Department) published in the Federal Register a notice inviting applications (NIA) for fiscal year (FY) 2025 for the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) Partnership Grants competition. The NIA established a deadline date of February 3, 2025, for the transmittal of applications. The Department is correcting the NIA by removing the competitive preference priorities. This notice also reopens the competition... Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (State Grants); Correction FR Document: 2025-10537 Citation: 90 FR 24598 PDF Pages 24598-24601 (4 pages) Permalink Abstract: On November 20, 2024, the Department of Education (Department) published in the Federal Register a notice inviting applications (NIA) for fiscal year (FY) 2025 for the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) State Grants competition. The NIA established a deadline date of February 3, 2025, for the transmittal of applications. The Department is correcting the NIA by removing some of the competitive preference priorities. This notice also reopens the...

Corruption, Fraud and Scandal at Los Angeles Community College District, Part 2 (LACCD Whistleblower)

[Editor's note: The first installment of Corruption, Fraud and Scandal at Los Angeles Community College District is here.]

“HR has been weaponized against our faculty for speaking out and complaining about discrimination.” This was a public comment made by Los Angeles Community College District Academic Senate President Angela Echeverri at the March 2025 Meeting of the LACCD Board of Trustees.

Echeverri’s remarks were not isolated either and were echoed by Deborah Harrington (California Community Colleges’ Success Network Executive Director), “Our HR leadership is not living up to the standards that we deserve. Our members remain quite frustrated.” More reporting can be read in Pierce College student newspaper ‘The RoundUp’ and LACCD Youtube Live-Streamed meetings.

These accusations come three years after longtime administrator Annie G. Reed (Annie Goldman Reed) left her position as Omsbudsman/Associate Dean of Students at Los Angeles Valley College was promoted to Interim Dean of Employee and Labor Relations collecting an annual salary of $284,935.00 in pay and benefits in 2022 according to Transparent California last year of reporting.

A survey of public records including news articles, lawsuits, accreditation complaints, and emails to show that Annie G. Reed has a long history of this sort of behavior across multiple LACCD campuses – going back to the 2000s. 

In an October 27, 2010 article ‘Grade Grievances Give Students Voice’ by Lucas Thompson in ‘The Los Angeles Valley Star’ Annie G. Reed is quoted as cautioning students against using their rights to challenge unfair grades stating, “It’s worthwhile if a student really thinks they have the proof to forward with the process . . . It’s their right to, [but] we don’t encourage frivolous [cases], because that’s a waste of college resources.” 

The article further quoted disgraced ex-College President Sue Carleo who left the institution in 2013, with the College finances in the red and on Warning Status with the Accreditation Commission of Junior and Community Colleges. Carleo warned that students should simply view mis-grading as “Human Error.” (https://archive.org/details/cavgchm_002210/mode/2up? q=Annie+Reed+LAVC)

When the ACJCC placed Los Angeles Valley College on Accreditation Warning it cited multiple standards violations and specifically;

College Recommendation 5:

To fully meet the Standards, the college should ensure that records of complaints are routinely maintained as required by the Policy on Student and Public Complaints Against Institutions (Standards II.B.2, II.B.2.c, II.B.3.a, II.B.4)

This came after Annie G. Reed failed to have student records or complaints available for inspection to the visiting Accreditation Team.

 Three years later Reed was again in hot water when a student filed an Accreditation Complaint in June 2016, specifically documenting multiple faculty members in the Los Angeles Valley College Media Arts Department engaging in fraud and deceptive practices – supported by sixty pages of documentation.

The complaint further stated that Reed refused to facilitate student complaints as was her role and threatened action for ‘disrupting the peace of the campus’ by making complaints. This was followed by a second accreditation complaint by another student regarding the same issues and a student Facebook Group discussing issues.

Reed’s response was to suspend the first student running a smear campaign that he was potential active shooter citing the complaints he brought, suspend a thirty-year old single mother in the Facebook Group for Academic dishonesty after she forgot to have a college transcript from when she was eighteen-years old sent to LAVC, and then threatened the second student who brought an Accreditation Complaint for vandalizing school property.

[Below: Text exchange between LACCD students alleging that administrator Annie Reed created a smear campaign against them.]

Student 1 was suspended for a year (though not expelled by the Board of Trustees after investigation) a semester short of graduating. Student 1 would have earned six associate degrees and eight occupational certificates. Student 2, was ordered to pay a substantial amount of financial aid back to the college as “restitution.” Several months later, she was subjected to a reversal of hours by LAVC Grant Director Dan Watanabe in the Media Arts Department, for a campus job she worked and ordered to pay back several thousand dollars. Student 3 ended up going to Los Angeles City College to take final classes needed to graduate and was nearly refused graduation by Department Chair Eric Swelstad.

These actions also happened right before and after LAVC Media Arts Faculty Eric Swelstad, Chad Sustin, Adrian Castillo, Dan Watanabe, and LAVC President Erika Endrijonas lobbied the LACCD Board of Trustees to approve construction of a new Media Arts Building that was later reported by The Los Angeles Times to be a massive racketeering scheme – Aug 4, 2022, Teresa Watanabe, ‘Corruption and fraud beset long-delayed L.A. Valley college theater project, lawsuit alleges.’ (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-08-04/corruption-alleged-in-long delayed-la-valley-college-theater-project) 

These actions mirrored the treatment of a student who sued LAVC’s Media Arts Department in 2009, alleging the same type of fraud and misconduct by nearly all the same Department Faculty.

Enrique Caraveo vs Los Angeles Valley College, Eric Swelstad, Joseph D’Accurso, Arantxia Rodriguez, Dennis J. Reed among others. Filing Date: 05/18/2009 (https://unicourt.com/case/ca la2-enrique-caraveo-vs-los-angeles-valley-college-et-al-621337)

In that case, Caraveo stated:

46. When plaintiff complained about the above referenced matters, Swelstad and other Valley College officials retaliated against plaintiff by refusing to grant him a Certificate and creating a hostile learning environment for him in class.

47. On or around June 2007 plaintiff satisfied the requirements to get a Cinema Arts Production Certificate (“Certificate”) at Valley College.

54. On or about October 2008, Swelstad denied plaintiff the certificate via a letter even though plaintiff has fulfilled the requirements to get the Certificate.

55. On or about October 13, 2008, plaintiff notified Delahoussaye and Reed that plaintiff had fulfilled all requirements for the Certificate and that they should take care of the matter as soon as possible. On or about October 13, 2008, Yasmin Delahoussaye and Dennis Reed denied request.”

Dennis Reed, was at the time the Dean over the Media Arts Department and the husband of Annie G. Reed. Dennis Reed was later profiled in LAist Magazine on April 27, 2016 article ‘Jerk Driver Who Ran Cyclists Off Glendale Road Charged With Assault, Lying To Police’ (https:// laist.com/news/justice-delivered-almost)

 More to the point – Dennis Reed also oversaw a grant program at Los Angeles Valley College Media Arts Department known as IDEAS – Institute for Developing Entertainment Arts and Studies at LAVC. The Grant was run by Dan Watanabe. (https://archive.org/details/ cavgchm_002241/mode/2up?q=Annie+Reed+LAVC)

 Watanabe was also named in the Accreditation Complaint for Wage Theft, Improper use of funds and fraud in the successor grant ICT Doing What Matters, due to the college receiving Grant Money but immediately eliminating the curriculum the grant application said they would provide and like Caraveo’s complaint not providing in class training or labs. The complaints to Accreditation and the LACCD Personnel Commission by students also questioned the legitimacy of a number of professional experts, including Robert Reber – who was listed as both a ‘student worker’ and ‘professional expert’ in 2008. Student 1 further provided evidence to both that Dan Watanabe had asked him to falsify his resume claiming fictitious jobs and cited an employee in the LAVC Payroll office as being behind it (that employee immediately denied it and Student 1 refused).

Dennis Reed had also spent years lobbying for the approval of the VACC building – unsuccessfully.

In short, Annie G. Reed’s retaliation and cover-up in 2016, may have been to help realize her husband’s failed building project as well as preemptively shutdown any investigations or audits that might trigger further scrutiny regarding how the IDEAS Grant was administered under his time as area Dean.

Reed’s behavior of covering up abusive behavior towards members of the LACCD Community was also not limited to retaliation against students.

In 2017, then LACCD Board President Andra Hoffman accused former Board President Scott Svonkin of abusive behavior and demanded sanctions. According to an article in the Los Angeles Daily News, ‘LA Community College board postpones sanction hearing vote against former 4 president’ August 28, 2017, Annie G. Reed again inserted herself into the matter to cover-up for Svonkin.

“The allegations do not strike me as related to governing and seem best suited for mediation,” said Annie Reed, a district employee for 22 years and a representative of Teamsters Local 911. “I don’t ever recall a time, or a place, where he has treated his colleagues poorly.”

Others disagreed, including two former women board members who did not speak at the downtown meeting.

They said Hoffman’s critics — who they said weren’t present during the abuse — had a tendency to blame the victim, while ignoring Svonkin’s allegedly brusque treatment of employees.” (https://www.dailynews.com/2017/07/13/la-community-college-board-postpones-sanction hearing-vote-against-former-president/)

Her behavior is further documented in a series of lawsuits against the LACCD District. 

Filed October 03, 2024 Dr. Christiana Baskaran (Plaintiff), Linda Silva; Dr. Ruth Dela Cruz, Dr. Adriana Portugal, vs LACCD (including defendant Annie Reed). (https://trellis.law/doc/ 219882998/complaint-filed-by-dr-christiana-baskaran-plaintiff-linda-silva-plaintiff-dr-ruth-dela cruz-plaintiff-et-al-as-to-los-angeles-community-college-district-defendant-board-trustees-los angeles-community-college-district-defendant-los-angeles-c)

“[other defendants] Annie Reed to discriminate against female faculty and staff, refused to investigate immediately or to take preventative action. Then Defendants and EMPLOYER DEFENDANTS retaliated against PLAINTIFFS and others to try and prevent them from complaining to authorities. When PLAINTIFFS opposed these illegal practices, they continued to retaliate against them.”

24. As set forth herein, ALL Defendants were officers, agents. Defendants and directly or indirectly used or attempt to use their official authority or influence for the purpose of intimidating, threatening, coercing, commanding, or attempting to intimidate, threaten, coerce, or command PLAINTIFF and others for the purpose of interfering with the right of that person to disclose to an official agent matters within the scope of this article. EMPLOYER DEFENDANTS aided and abetted MARY GALLAGHER, ARMANDO RIVERA-FIGUEROA, ANN HAMILTON, JAMES LANCASTER, JOCELYN SIMPSON, JIM LANCASTER, ANNIE REED and Victoria Friedman District Complaince Officer, Genie-Sarceda-Magruder Interim Director Office for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, Rick Von Kolen to violate this statute.

28. . . .Dr Hamilton admitted to other illegal activity such as planting drugs on employees to destroy their reputation and get them fired. Dr Silva filed a grievance against Dean Hamilton to try and get her to stop the illegal activity, the union did nothing. 

32. Ms. Silva complained to Human Resources filed a title IX complaint, made a report to the police and was retaliated against.

Filed October 19, 2023 Sara Adams, An Individual VS California Institute of Technology, California Corporation. (https://trellis.law/case/23stcv25556/sara-adams-an-individual-vs california-institute-technology-california-corporation)

“21. On April 7, 2023, Mr. Wu continued to report the pay disparity to Annie Reed, Upon information and belief, Annie Reed is Caltech’s Employee and Organizational Development Consultant (Human Resources Department). 

22. Annie Reed spoke about the report of pay disparity to Ofelia Velazquez-Perez, Caltech’s Senior Director, Total Rewards and Director of Employee and Organizational Development (Employee Relations).”

Filed March 08, 2021, Mitra Hoshiar, an individual, Plaintiff, v. Los Angeles Community College District, (https://trellis.law/case/21stcv08950/mitra-hoshiar-vs-los-angeles-community college-district-an-unknown-entity)

“28. On December 3, 2015, PLAINTIFF then filed a discrimination complaint against Sheri Berger (“Berger”), VP of Academic Affairs, and Fernando Oleas (“Oleas”), Pierce Union President. During PLAINTIFF meeting with Dean Barbara Anderson (“Anderson”) at Anderson’s office on June 10, 2015, Berger and Oleas stopped by and started making remarks of PLAINTIFF’s accent for reading the graduates’ names on the ceremony with a non-American accent.

29. Thereafter, On December 11, 2015, in meeting with Dean Annie Reed in conjunction with the non-collegiality investigation Walsh, Union Grievance Rep and Oleas stopped by at PLAINTIFF’s office in order to prevent PLAINTIFF from Union Representation. They made PLAINTIFF to Barbara Anderson, whom was PLANTIFF’s chosen union rep and request for Anderson to not join the meeting because Walsh and Oleas had to choose who could be the union representation in the meeting.

30. Based on what had transpired on December 11, 2015, on December 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Whistleblower/Retaliation Complaint at the District’s Complaint at the District’s Compliance Office against Walsh, Oleas, and McKeever (department and union delegate), and other members of her department. No action was taken by the Compliance Office.

Annie G. Reed’s, current interim Dean of Labor and Employee Relations, has been involved in covering up wrongdoing in the Los Angeles Community College District for decades. Her targets have involved employees, students, faculty, and even a trustee. And so far has never been held accountable.

Multiple stories were published on newswire IndyBay, the news outlet branch of the San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center between 2023 and 2024. They were then scrubbed (along with other stories) over the weekend of May 18, 2025.

Recently, newly appointed Chancellor, Dr. Alberto J. Roman has been alerted to Ms. Reed’s disturbing history – it remains to be seen whether he will take corrective action, or continue to 6 keep around the same problematic individuals that resulted in his predecessor’s resignation after a vote of no-confidence by the LACCD Academic Senate.

(To be continued...) 

What do the University of Phoenix and Risepoint have in common? The answer is a compelling story of greed and politics.

In the increasingly commodified world of higher education, the University of Phoenix and Risepoint (formerly Academic Partnerships) represent parallel tales of how private equity, political influence, and deceptive practices have shaped the online college landscape. While their paths have diverged in branding and institutional affiliation, the underlying motives and outcomes share disturbing similarities.

---

The University of Phoenix: A Legacy of Legal and Ethical Trouble

The University of Phoenix (UOP) has been a central player in the for-profit college boom, particularly during and after the 2000s. Under the ownership of Apollo Education Group, and later the Vistria Group, UOP has faced a relentless stream of lawsuits, regulatory scrutiny, and public outrage.

In 2019, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a $191 million settlement with UOP over allegations of deceptive advertising. UOP falsely claimed partnerships with major corporations like Microsoft, AT&T, and Twitter to entice students. The result was $50 million in restitution and $141 million in student debt relief.

But the legal troubles didn’t stop there. In 2022 and 2023, the U.S. Department of Education included UOP in a broader class action that granted $37 million in borrower defense discharges. These claims stemmed from deceptive marketing and predatory recruitment practices.

Meanwhile, in 2024, the California Attorney General settled with UOP for $4.5 million over allegations of illegally targeting military service members between 2012 and 2015. The university’s controversial relationship with the military community also led to a temporary VA suspension of GI Bill enrollments in 2020.

The legal history includes False Claims Act suits brought by whistleblowers, including former employees alleging falsified records, incentive-based recruiter pay, and exaggerated graduation and job placement statistics. In 2019, Apollo Education settled a securities fraud lawsuit for $7.4 million.

More recently, UOP has been embroiled in political controversy in Idaho. In 2023 and 2024, the Idaho Attorney General challenged the state's attempt to acquire UOP, citing Open Meetings Act violations and lack of transparency. Though a federal judge initially dismissed the suit, Idaho’s Supreme Court allowed an appeal to proceed.

Through all of this, Vistria Group—UOP’s private equity owner since 2017—has reaped massive profits. Vistria was co-founded by Marty Nesbitt, a close confidant of Barack Obama, underscoring the bipartisan political protection that shields for-profit education from lasting accountability.

---

Risepoint and the Online Program Management Model

Risepoint, formerly Academic Partnerships (AP), tells a similarly troubling story, albeit from the Online Program Manager (OPM) side of the education-industrial complex. Founded in 2007 by Randy Best, a well-connected Republican donor with ties to Jeb Bush, AP helped universities build online degree programs in exchange for a significant cut of tuition—sometimes up to 50%.

This tuition-share model, though legal, has raised ethical red flags. Critics argue it diverts millions in public education dollars into private hands, inflates student debt, and incentivizes aggressive, misleading recruitment. The most infamous case was the University of Texas-Arlington, which paid AP more than $178 million over five years. President Vistasp Karbhari resigned in 2020 after it was revealed he had taken international trips funded by AP.

Risepoint was acquired by Vistria Group in 2019, placing it in the same portfolio as the University of Phoenix and other education businesses. The firm’s growing influence in higher education—fueled by Democratic-aligned private equity—reflects a deeper entanglement of politics, policy, and profiteering.

In 2024, Minnesota became the first state to ban new tuition-share agreements with OPMs like Risepoint. This legislative action followed backlash from a controversial deal between Risepoint and St. Cloud State University, where critics accused the firm of extracting excessive revenue while offering questionable value.

Further pressure came from the federal level. In 2024, Senators Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, and Tina Smith issued letters to major OPMs demanding transparency about recruitment tactics and tuition-share models. The Department of Education followed in January 2025 with new guidance restricting misleading marketing by OPMs, including impersonation of university staff.

Despite this, Risepoint continued expanding. In late 2023, the company purchased Wiley’s online program business for $150 million, signaling consolidation in a turbulent industry. Yet a 2024 report showed 147 OPM-university contracts had been terminated in 2023, and new contracts fell by over 50%.

---

What Ties Them Together: Vistria Group

Vistria Group sits at the center of both sagas. The Chicago-based private equity firm has made education—especially online and for-profit education—a core pillar of its investment strategy. With connections to both Democratic and Republican power brokers, Vistria has deftly navigated the regulatory landscape while profiting from public education dollars.

Its ownership of the University of Phoenix and Risepoint demonstrates a clear strategy: acquire distressed or controversial education companies, clean up their public image, and extract revenue while avoiding deep reforms. Through Vistria, private equity gains access to billions in federal student aid with minimal oversight and a bipartisan shield.

The result is a higher education ecosystem where political influence, corporate profit, and public exploitation collide. And whether through online degrees from the University of Phoenix or public-private partnerships with Risepoint, students are often the ones left bearing the cost.

---

As scrutiny intensifies and state and federal lawmakers demand reform, the futures of Risepoint and the University of Phoenix remain uncertain. But one thing is clear: their shared story reveals how higher education has become a battleground of greed, power, and politics.