Higher Education Inquirer

Tuesday, April 22, 2025

More than 100 Champions of Higher Education Join PEN America in "A Pledge to Our Democracy"

In a stirring call to action, more than 100 distinguished former college and university leaders from across the nation have joined PEN America to launch A Pledge to Our Democracy, a unified stand against the growing threats of authoritarianism. Representing every corner of American higher education—from flagship research universities to HBCUs and community colleges—these Champions of Higher Education are rising above politics to defend democratic values, academic freedom, and civic integrity. Backed by PEN America, the Pledge urges Americans to form the broadest possible coalition—students, educators, labor unions, and local leaders alike—to protect the rule of law and ensure the political independence of our institutions. At a time when core liberties are under siege, these seasoned stewards of education are sending a clear message: silence is complicity, and the time to act is now.

The following Champions, available to speak with reporters, released these statements below:

R. Barbara Gitenstein, The College of New Jersey (NJ)

“One of the most important foundations for a healthy democracy is a robust higher education system. That system includes all sectors—public and private, two- year and four-year, graduate and undergraduate, elite and open access. A robust system recognizes the integrity of individual institutions in realizing their own missions, overseen by their boards of trustees/directors, not directed by governmental overreach. Higher education leadership has the responsibility to speak up and speak out for these values.”

Karen Gross, Southern Vermont College (VT),

“I am proud to sign the Champions of Education pledge, along with over 100 former college and university presidents. The current administration has threatened one of the hallmarks of our Democracy: education. When a government challenges the autonomy of educational institutions, freezes or terminates grants rightfully awarded, removes visas that permit international students to study in our nation and takes steps to remove the tax exempt status of universities, leaders within the educational arena must take a stand. We owe it to current and future students, from wherever they hail and whatever their background, to ensure that educational opportunity does and will persist in America, and no government can legally dismantle access to information and knowledge, key research within and outside the sciences and free speech on campuses and within classrooms. Our commitment to education commands us, indeed demands of us, to speak up and out before there is even greater irreparable injury to educational institutions and the thousands upon thousands of students, faculty and staff within them.)

Richard Guarasci, Wagner College (NY)

“This is a very critical time for higher education leaders to stand up for American democracy in the face of belligerent attacks on the rule of law , due process and the freedom to learn. “

Freeman Hrabowski, University of Maryland, Baltimore County (MD)

“This Pledge to our Democracy represents my voice and the voices of my fellow former university presidents as we encourage all Americans to speak out about the ongoing attacks on universities, national agencies, and other critical sectors of our society. These institutions reflect and secure this democracy’s most important values, including truth, evidence, expertise, fairness, inclusion, and compassion. Our actions now will speak volumes to our children about what we believe should be most important in their lives.”

Elaine Maimon, Governors State University (IL); University of Alaska Anchorage (AK)

“Independent universities and a free press are hallmarks of a thriving democracy—something we must unite to protect.”

Lily D. McNair, Tuskegee University (AL)

“America’s higher education system is being dismantled by an administration that does not understand the value of education for our democracy. Our students deserve the benefits of a higher education system that is a global leader in teaching and research. As a former president of an HBCU, I am concerned by the ways in which history has been rewritten to render invisible the contributions of Black, Brown, people of color, and LGBTQ+ people to America.”

Brian Murphy, De Anza College (CA)

“The attacks on higher education are part of a much broader assault on science, our history, and truth itself. This Pledge is a commitment to defend our democratic values.”

Kevin P. Reilly, University of Wisconsin System

“Our founders created a government with a balance of powers invested in three co-equal branches. They did so because they feared that absent that balance a president could run roughshod over the liberties of our citizens and the institutions of civil society in an attempt to accrue unchecked power. My fellow former college and university presidents and I have signed this Pledge because we believe that a very serious effort to undermine the legislative and judicial branches is now under way, and we all need to stand up against it if American democracy is to survive.”

Jack M. Wilson, University of Massachusetts (MA)

"I have signed this because it has never been more important for universities and other higher education institutions to stand in solidarity and in defense of our democratic institutions that are currently under attack. We also stand in solidarity with the law firms and legal institutions that are facing similar threats. The education and research conducted by our institutions has been the core of our economic and cultural success for many generations. That leadership is now at risk."

About PEN America

PEN America stands at the intersection of literature and human rights to protect free expression in the United States and worldwide. We champion the freedom to write, recognizing the power of the word to transform the world. Our mission is to unite writers and their allies to celebrate creative expression and defend the liberties that make it possible. Learn more at pen.org.

Wellsley College: Progressive in Theory. Right Wing in Practice.

The ongoing faculty strike at Wellesley College reveals, in stark terms, the reality of the two-tier faculty system that has come to define much of American higher education. Despite its reputation as a progressive liberal arts institution, Wellesley—like many of its peers—relies heavily on contingent faculty to carry out the core educational mission, while systematically denying them the security and respect afforded to their tenured counterparts.

At Wellesley, non-tenure-track (NTT) faculty make up about 30 percent of the teaching staff but are responsible for teaching 40 percent of the college’s classes. These educators are essential to the functioning of the institution, yet they are paid less, enjoy fewer benefits, and live with little to no job security. Only in January 2024 did they formally unionize, and since May, they have been negotiating what would be their first collective bargaining agreement. The protracted nature of these negotiations—and the college administration’s sluggish response—led to the strike, now stretching into its fourth week.

The strike has exposed the deep fissures between NTT and tenure-track faculty. In response to the disruption, the administration asked tenured professors to take on additional students, offer independent studies, or otherwise fill in for their striking colleagues. No additional compensation was offered. Faculty were given less than 48 hours to decide whether to participate. The move created a moral and professional dilemma: Should tenured faculty support their striking colleagues by refusing to cross the picket line, or should they prioritize the needs of students—particularly those whose immigration status or financial aid depended on maintaining full-time academic standing?

In many ways, this is the real function of the two-tier system. It doesn't just allow institutions to save money by underpaying a significant portion of their teaching workforce. It also creates structural divisions that can be exploited in times of labor unrest. The privileged position of tenured faculty makes them natural pressure points for the administration, able to be guilted or coerced into mitigating the effects of a strike without fundamentally changing the system that caused it.

Driving this system are university presidents and senior administrators who increasingly adopt corporate, anti-labor management styles. These leaders often frame themselves as neutral actors mediating between stakeholders, but their actions tell a different story. In their refusal to negotiate in good faith, their last-minute crisis planning, and their strategic deployment of fear—around students’ financial aid, immigration status, and graduation timelines—they reveal a deep alignment with union-busting tactics more often seen in the private sector. These administrative strategies not only weaken labor solidarity, but also erode the educational environment they claim to protect.

What’s happening at Wellesley is not unique. It mirrors a broader pattern across higher education, where elite institutions rely on the labor of contingent faculty while denying them the protections and prestige of tenure. This isn’t a bug in the system—it is the system. The two-tier model is not about flexibility or innovation, as administrators often claim. It’s about control and cost containment, and when challenged, colleges will invoke crisis—whether financial, academic, or humanitarian—to maintain that control.

In this moment, Wellesley’s administration has positioned tenured faculty as potential strikebreakers, students as bargaining chips, and contingent faculty as expendable. The strike, and the response to it, underscores the urgent need to dismantle the exploitative structures that underpin so many American colleges. Until that happens—and until college presidents are held accountable for anti-labor tactics—students and faculty alike will continue to suffer, not only from instability, but from the erosion of trust and shared purpose in the academic community.

Trump’s War on Public Knowledge: The Dismantling of ERIC and the Erosion of Educational Access

When teachers search for help with lesson plans, parents look for answers on school policies, or researchers dig into the roots of America’s education system, many unknowingly rely on a public treasure: ERIC, the Education Resources Information Center. Behind nearly every meaningful Google result about U.S. education lies this carefully curated public database, an open-access archive of more than 2.1 million education documents funded by the U.S. Department of Education.

But this essential public good—free, accessible, nonpartisan—is now on the chopping block.

Unless something changes in the coming days, ERIC will stop being updated after April 23, marking the end of a 60-year-old institution that has helped educators, researchers, and policymakers base decisions on evidence, not ideology. The shutdown is not the result of budget shortfalls or Congressional gridlock. It’s a deliberate act of sabotage by the Trump administration, hiding behind the bland bureaucratic label of “efficiency.”

Dismantling by Design

ERIC has been a mainstay of U.S. education since the 1960s, originally distributed on microfiche and now operating as a seamless, open-access website used by 14 million people each year. Think of it as the education world’s PubMed—a foundational, publicly funded resource that supports millions of decisions in classrooms and boardrooms alike.

The platform is funded through a five-year contract set to run through 2028. But that contract is now functionally dead thanks to DOGE, the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, a newly created unit within the Trump Department of Education. Though Congress authorized the money, DOGE has refused to release it, effectively forcing ERIC into paralysis.

“After 60 years of gathering hard-to-find education literature and sharing it broadly, the website could stop being updated,” said Erin Pollard Young, the longtime Education Department staffer who oversaw ERIC until she was terminated in a mass layoff of more than 1,300 federal education employees in March.

Let’s be clear: this isn’t just about saving a database. This is about obliterating public access to knowledge—especially knowledge that challenges right-wing narratives about education in America.

The Anti-Intellectual Playbook

This is not an isolated incident. The Trump administration’s hostility toward public institutions, academic research, and intellectual labor has been a central feature of its governance. From banning diversity training to rewriting U.S. history standards, this White House has repeatedly attacked education systems that promote nuance, evidence, or inclusion.

ERIC is now the latest victim in a broader war on independent knowledge. It doesn’t just house peer-reviewed journal articles. It archives what’s known as gray literature—unpublished reports, independent studies, and school district evaluations that are often the only public record of how education really works in practice. These materials often tell inconvenient truths: about inequality, segregation, charter school corruption, and failed policies pushed by corporate reformers.

“Big, important RCTs [randomized controlled trials] are in white papers,” said Pollard Young. “Google and AI can’t replicate what ERIC does.”

But gray literature doesn’t fit neatly into Trumpworld’s political project. It can’t be weaponized into culture war talking points. And perhaps that’s why it’s being buried.

Defunding the Backbone of Evidence

Before being fired, Pollard Young was ordered by DOGE to cut ERIC’s budget nearly in half—from $5.5 million to $2.25 million—a demand she tried to meet, despite knowing the consequences. Forty-five percent of journals would have been removed from the indexing pipeline. The help desk would vanish. Pollard Young herself agreed to take over publisher outreach from contractors to keep the program alive.

Her plan was rejected with a single email in all caps: “THIS IS NOT APPROVED.” Then, silence.

“Without constant curation and updating, so much information will be lost,” she warned. And with her termination, ERIC has no federal steward left.

Make no mistake—ERIC is being suffocated, not because it failed, but because it succeeded too well. It made knowledge available to anyone with an internet connection. And for an administration that thrives on disinformation and division, that’s a threat.

Who Pays the Price?

Educators, researchers, and school leaders will lose the most. But the real tragedy is what this means for public education as a democratic institution. When vital information disappears or becomes inaccessible, it opens the door to policy based on myth and ideology, not reality.

“Defunding ERIC would limit public access to critical education research, hindering evidence-based practices and informed policy decisions,” said Gladys Cruz, past president of the AASA, The School Superintendents Association.

The Department of Education responded not with a defense of ERIC, but with a political attack on its parent agency, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES). A spokesperson claimed IES has “failed to effectively fulfill its mandate,” echoing the administration’s now-familiar strategy: discredit the institution, defund it, then destroy it.

An Urgent Call to Action

Pollard Young, who is still technically on administrative leave, has chosen to speak out, risking retaliation from a vindictive administration to warn the public.

“To me, it is important for the field to know that I am doing everything in my power to save ERIC,” she said. “And also for the country to understand what is happening.”

We should listen.

ERIC is more than a database—it’s a record of our educational history, a safeguard against ignorance, and a tool for building a more equitable future. Killing it isn’t just reckless. It’s ideological.

This is what authoritarianism looks like in the 21st century. Not just book bans and curriculum gag orders, but the slow, quiet erasure of public knowledge—done in the name of “efficiency,” while the lights go out on truth.

Social Reality: Is Needed Justice Reform in America Possible?

Reforming the U.S. legal profession and improving access to justice is a daunting, nearly impossible challenge. The (in)justice system is increasingly overwhelmed by massive case backlogs and a growing pattern of decisions that disproportionately disadvantage working-class individuals, raising serious concerns about equal access to justice and the erosion of public trust in legal institutions. Despite the pressing need for change, the entrenched interests and structural flaws within the system have created a legal landscape that is resistant to meaningful reform. While there are various proposals for change, they often run headfirst into the vast power of those who benefit from the current system, making true progress an uphill battle.

Reforming Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL) Laws

The UPL laws, which are intended to protect consumers from unqualified legal advice, are often wielded as a weapon to preserve the monopoly that licensed lawyers have on legal services. While reform proposals suggest allowing non-lawyers, such as paralegals, to provide more services or revising enforcement to make it easier for people to access affordable help, these changes face steep opposition. Law firms, bar associations, and the established legal profession are unlikely to willingly give up the control they have over legal services, even if it means denying access to justice for those who cannot afford traditional legal representation. These reforms threaten their profitable business models, and as such, they are fiercely guarded by the very people who would be most affected by their implementation. Any meaningful reform would have to overcome a deeply entrenched system that profits off maintaining high barriers to entry and costly services.

Expanding Access to Affordable Legal Services

The idea of expanding legal aid or incentivizing pro bono work to improve access to legal services is a noble one, but it does little to address the core issues of systemic inefficiency. Legal aid organizations are underfunded and overburdened, often unable to meet the needs of the most vulnerable. While pro bono work is often lauded as a solution, it is not a reliable or sustainable path forward. Law firms that participate in pro bono work typically do so on their terms, taking on cases that have high visibility or public interest, while the overwhelming majority of low-income individuals continue to be left without adequate representation.

Furthermore, proposals for sliding-scale fees or flat-rate pricing models for legal services are unlikely to disrupt the deeply embedded billable-hour model. Law firms and lawyers are incentivized to keep clients in the system for as long as possible, maximizing profits rather than minimizing the cost of services. Until there is substantial reform to the way legal services are priced and delivered, accessibility will remain a distant dream for those who need it most.

Legal Technology and Innovation

Technological innovation has been touted as a potential solution to the access-to-justice crisis, with companies like LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer offering affordable alternatives to traditional legal services. However, these platforms, while helpful for basic services, only scratch the surface of the larger problem. They focus on simple tasks like document preparation, leaving individuals with complex legal issues still in the dark. The reality is that these tools often do more to reinforce the current system than to dismantle it.

Moreover, the reliance on technology fails to account for the digital divide. Many low-income individuals, particularly in rural areas, do not have access to the necessary tools or internet connections to utilize these services effectively. In addition, these services still do not provide the level of personalized, professional legal representation that many people require. As such, legal technology remains an inadequate solution to the underlying problems of accessibility and affordability.

Reforming Legal Education

The exorbitant cost of law school remains one of the most significant barriers to diversifying the legal profession and addressing the oversupply of lawyers. While proposals to reduce tuition or offer more affordable paths to the profession, such as apprenticeships or clerkships, sound appealing, the reality is that the legal education system is unlikely to change without substantial disruption. Law schools, driven by high tuition fees, have little incentive to lower costs, and the established power structures within the profession work to preserve the current educational model.

Diversity initiatives in law schools, while important, often fail to address the broader issues of accessibility. The overwhelming cost of legal education prevents many individuals from underrepresented communities from entering the profession, despite efforts to provide scholarships and outreach programs. Until the cost of legal education is addressed on a systemic level, any attempts at increasing diversity in the profession will be little more than a Band-Aid solution to a much larger problem.

Strengthening Anti-SLAPP Legislation

Anti-SLAPP laws, which protect individuals from frivolous lawsuits aimed at stifling free speech, are essential for ensuring that individuals can criticize powerful interests without fear of retribution. However, these laws are not universally applied, and in many states, they are weak or difficult to enforce. The reality is that powerful corporations and wealthy individuals often use their resources to exploit the legal system, silencing critics with the threat of costly litigation.

The expansion of Anti-SLAPP protections nationwide is an uphill battle, especially given the powerful lobbying interests that benefit from the status quo. Even when such laws exist, they are often undermined by a system that favors the wealthy and the powerful. Stronger enforcement measures are needed to deter the use of lawsuits as a tool for silencing dissent, but the legal system remains far too vulnerable to exploitation by those with the resources to manipulate it.

Policy and Legislative Advocacy: A Stale Battle

Advocating for comprehensive legal reforms in the current political climate seems like a futile endeavor. Lawmakers are entrenched in partisan battles, with little interest in tackling the structural problems within the legal profession. While some reforms, such as revising UPL laws or increasing funding for legal aid, might garner some support, the overall political environment makes it exceedingly difficult to achieve anything substantial.

Powerful lobbying groups, including the American Bar Association, hold significant sway over the legislative process, ensuring that any efforts to reform the legal system are watered down or blocked altogether. Those who would benefit from reform—namely, low-income individuals and marginalized communities—have little political power compared to the well-funded entities that protect the status quo.

Rethinking the Role of Law Firms

The idea of encouraging law firms to adopt new business models—such as flat fees or subscription services—has gained some traction, but it faces considerable opposition. Traditional law firms, particularly large ones, rely heavily on billable hours and high fees. The financial incentives built into the legal system make it difficult for firms to move away from these models, even if it means improving access for the public. Any attempts to make legal services more affordable are met with resistance from the industry, which benefits from its highly profitable business model.

Collaborations between law firms and nonprofits to provide legal services to underserved communities are a step in the right direction, but they are often limited in scope. Nonprofit legal organizations are themselves underfunded and overburdened, and the ability of law firms to significantly alter the landscape of legal access is hindered by the systemic forces working against change.

How is Legal Reform Possible?

Reforming the legal profession in today’s political climate is a near-impossible task. The systemic issues within the profession—entrenched business models, political polarization, and the deep financial interests that benefit from the current system—make significant reform highly unlikely. Though there are some proposals for change, they often face immense resistance from the very entities that stand to lose from these changes.

While the need for reform is urgent, meaningful change will not come easily. The road to reform is littered with powerful vested interests, both within and outside the legal profession, that will fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo. Despite the calls for a more accessible, affordable, and equitable legal system, the reality is that, without major disruption, the legal system will continue to serve the interests of the wealthy and powerful, leaving the rest to fend for themselves.

In a system that so often seems to work against the people it is meant to serve, the prospects for true reform remain distant, and the barriers to achieving it are higher than ever. Until the broader political environment shifts to support fundamental change, the legal profession will remain one of the most entrenched, self-serving industries in America.

Monday, April 21, 2025

Universities Are Becoming Real Estate Giants—and It's Hurting Communities

As housing costs soar and faculty wages stagnate, colleges and universities are turning to a so-called solution: workforce housing. Marketed as a win-win to help recruit and retain middle-income academic workers—those priced out of both subsidized and market-rate housing—this trend has quietly become a major land grab. But behind the rhetoric of affordability and institutional care lies a troubling truth: big banks and universities are partnering to privatize housing and reshape cities in ways that displace vulnerable communities.

According to Tucker Kaufmann of JPMorganChase—one of the largest financial institutions in the world—universities are "well-positioned" to take on this new real estate role. Kaufmann frames this as a shift in mindset: “It’s about getting people to think about it differently.” But we should be asking: who is doing the thinking—and who is left out of the conversation?

Deverian Baldwin, author of In the Shadow of the Ivory Tower, has spent years exposing how higher education institutions act as unregulated city-builders. Far from being benevolent employers or “anchor institutions,” universities often operate more like corporations—accumulating land, avoiding taxes, and driving gentrification under the guise of community development. Workforce housing is just the latest vehicle for this expansion.

What Is Workforce Housing—And Who Benefits?

Workforce housing is aimed at those earning 60–120% of area median income (AMI)—a group Baldwin might describe as "precarious professionals," squeezed by rising costs but not considered poor enough for traditional subsidies. In theory, this model helps faculty, staff, and grad students live closer to campus. In practice, it creates new market pressures on neighborhoods that are already facing displacement.

In 2022, a third of U.S. renter households were cost-burdened. But instead of addressing root causes—like stagnant wages, predatory lending, or the commodification of housing—universities are stepping in as landlords. With land and capital at their disposal, they can build new developments or purchase existing ones, positioning themselves as the solution to a crisis they help perpetuate.

And let’s be clear: this isn’t just about meeting employee needs. It’s about revenue. Workforce housing offers steady cash flow, and in many cases, universities don’t even pay property taxes on their holdings—leaving cities to foot the bill for infrastructure, schools, and services.

The Real Cost: Gentrification and Displacement

Baldwin’s research underscores a stark reality: universities increasingly behave like corporate developers. Their real estate strategies—cloaked in the language of public service—have devastating consequences for low-income communities, especially Black and brown neighborhoods near urban campuses.

When universities build workforce housing, they often do so on underutilized or “surplus” land. But in cities where land is scarce, that often means expanding into working-class areas. As higher-paid university employees move in, property values rise, rent hikes follow, and long-standing residents are pushed out.

The narrative of “revitalization” ignores the cost to these communities. It also masks the power imbalance: universities operate without public accountability, shielded by their nonprofit status and backed by powerful financial institutions like JPMorganChase. This is not just housing policy—it’s economic displacement, dressed in institutional branding.

Developer or Educator?

Universities claim that workforce housing improves “town-gown” relations and helps them recruit talent. But Baldwin warns that these justifications often hide a more cynical calculus: expand the brand, grow the endowment, and control the neighborhood. Whether through public-private partnerships or nonprofit intermediaries, universities are carving out real estate empires while sidestepping democratic oversight.

Some institutions purchase existing multifamily housing, like a California university-affiliated nonprofit that bought 120 units for faculty. Others build from scratch, such as a New England campus partnering with developers to erect new housing complexes. In both cases, the university gains influence over local housing markets—without bearing the responsibilities of a traditional landlord or civic entity.

These projects are rarely subject to community input. And when they are, the concerns of low-income residents are often sidelined in favor of institutional priorities. Even well-intentioned efforts risk accelerating the very gentrification they claim to mitigate.

Toward Accountability and Justice

To avoid deepening inequality, universities must fundamentally rethink their role—not just as employers, but as power brokers in urban space. That means moving beyond token stakeholder meetings and isolated affordability set-asides. It means asking who gets to live in a neighborhood, and who gets pushed out.

Baldwin argues for stronger oversight, tax reform, and truly democratic planning processes. Universities should be held accountable for the social and economic impacts of their development—especially when public money, land, or resources are involved.

Mixed-income housing, community land trusts, and partnerships with tenant groups are one path forward. But even these must be guided by the principle that housing is a human right—not a recruitment tool or investment strategy.

Conclusion: A Crisis of Mission

Workforce housing, at its best, is a patch on a broken system. At its worst, it’s a real estate strategy that deepens inequality while shielding powerful institutions from scrutiny. Universities claim to serve the public good—but when they act like landlords and developers, they erode the very communities they’re supposed to uplift.

As Baldwin reminds us, we must resist the myth of the benevolent university. Institutions of higher education are not neutral actors—they are central players in urban displacement and economic exclusion. If they want to help solve the housing crisis, they must start by relinquishing power, paying their fair share, and prioritizing justice overgrowth.

Higher Education Inquirer's Most Popular Articles This Month

Sunday, April 20, 2025

Canary Mission: A Threat to Democracy on US Campuses

In recent years, the rise of organizations like Canary Mission has raised serious concerns about the state of free speech, academic freedom, and democracy on American college campuses. Operating under the guise of combating anti-Semitism and extremism, Canary Mission’s tactics and objectives have sparked widespread debate about its impact on campus life and the broader implications for democracy in the U.S.

Who is Canary Mission?

Founded in 2015, Canary Mission is a controversial online platform that compiles and publishes dossiers on students, professors, and organizations it deems to be associated with anti-Semitism or support for groups like Hamas or Hezbollah. While it claims to be an anti-extremist initiative, critics argue that Canary Mission’s activities are part of a broader, coordinated effort to silence pro-Palestinian voices, suppress critical discourse, and undermine academic freedom.

The organization's name derives from the "canary in the coal mine" metaphor, suggesting that it is warning the public about supposed dangers related to individuals and groups it monitors. But in practice, Canary Mission’s database often targets individuals solely for their political views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with no proven ties to terrorism or violence. Students, particularly those involved in pro-Palestinian activism or who criticize Israel’s policies, have found themselves the subject of detailed and often misleading profiles that can haunt their careers.

The impact of Canary Mission is far-reaching: students who appear on the site have reported facing backlash in the form of social ostracism, job discrimination, and even legal action, all because their political activities or beliefs have been highlighted on this platform. Canary Mission’s website claims to provide a “public service” by exposing individuals “advocating for hate,” but its methods often conflate political activism with extremism, which can create an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship within academic circles.

Funding and Connections

Canary Mission’s funding sources remain somewhat opaque, which raises questions about its backing and potential influence. According to investigative reports and public disclosures, it is widely believed that the organization is funded by a network of right-wing pro-Israel groups, including wealthy donors, philanthropic organizations, and think tanks like the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. These connections underscore a broader ideological agenda that aligns with certain political interests, particularly those that aim to stifle critical discussions surrounding Israel’s policies and its occupation of Palestine.

The secrecy surrounding its financial backing and the lack of transparency in its operations have led many to draw parallels between Canary Mission and other shadowy entities designed to police speech and dissent. It appears to operate in the shadows, with little public oversight or accountability. This lack of transparency further erodes trust in its motivations and methods.

Undermining Democracy and Free Speech

At its core, Canary Mission's activities are a direct attack on the fundamental principles of democracy: free speech and the right to dissent. In a healthy democracy, universities serve as incubators for diverse ideas, where students are encouraged to debate and challenge ideas without fear of retribution. However, by tracking and blacklisting individuals who express views about Israel, Palestine, or other sensitive geopolitical issues, Canary Mission is chilling free expression on campuses across the country.

The organization’s efforts to publicly shame individuals who participate in peaceful political activism not only threatens their personal and professional futures but also discourages others from speaking out. In effect, it promotes an atmosphere of fear where students are reluctant to engage in legitimate political discourse out of concern for being targeted.

Moreover, Canary Mission’s activities can create a toxic, polarized environment on campuses. By labeling individuals as extremists based on their political positions rather than their actions or behaviors, the organization fuels division and resentment. This undermines the civil discourse that should thrive in academic settings, where ideas are meant to be debated and critically examined. Instead, it creates an echo chamber that only accepts one viewpoint, forcing out dissent and opposition.

The claim that Canary Mission is a controversial organization that undermines democracy on U.S. campuses can be supported by multiple sources from investigative journalists, academic scholars, and civil rights organizations who have analyzed the organization's activities. Here are a few sources that substantiate the concerns regarding Canary Mission:

The New York Times (2016) – An article titled "A Shadowy Online Group Is Targeting American Students" highlights the growing concerns about Canary Mission's activities and its impact on free speech on campuses. The piece discusses how students, particularly those involved in pro-Palestinian activism, are being targeted and profiled on the platform, leading to career and personal repercussions.
The Electronic Intifada (2016) – This online news platform dedicated to issues surrounding Palestine and Israel published several articles that discuss how Canary Mission disproportionately targets students and activists critical of Israeli policies. The site’s reports argue that the platform acts as an intimidation tool against those who challenge mainstream narratives regarding Israel.
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) – The CCR has expressed concern over the chilling effects Canary Mission has on academic freedom and free speech. They highlight how the organization often labels political activism as extremism, without proper evidence, and argues that it is a form of political repression aimed at silencing certain voices.
The Forward (2018) – A Jewish publication, The Forward ran a story detailing how Canary Mission had led to the harassment and blacklisting of students, and how its methods were drawing criticism from many who saw it as an attack on academic freedom.
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Reports – While the ADL has supported efforts to combat anti-Semitism, they have also raised concerns about the unintended consequences of organizations like Canary Mission, suggesting that their approach to monitoring student activism can blur the line between legitimate political expression and hate speech.
The Guardian (2017) – A Guardian article explored how Canary Mission's controversial practices affected student life, particularly those involved in the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement. The article discusses the potential damage to reputations and careers due to Canary Mission's online blacklist.
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) – The SPLC has been vocal about the ways in which Canary Mission’s tactics align with other surveillance programs aimed at quelling dissent. The SPLC has voiced concern about its potential for misusing "extremism" labels to stifle legitimate political views, undermining democracy and the right to free speech.

Canary Mission's efforts to stifle free speech and intimidate those who hold opposing views on sensitive political issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict represent a dangerous erosion of democratic values in American higher education. By using fear, intimidation, and a lack of transparency to silence critical voices, it undermines the very foundation of academic freedom and democratic engagement.

Universities should be spaces where open dialogue and differing opinions are encouraged, not spaces where students are targeted for their political beliefs. As the influence of groups like Canary Mission continues to grow, it is imperative that the broader academic community pushes back against these efforts and defends the principles of free speech, democratic engagement, and intellectual diversity. Without these values, our campuses—and our democracy—will be all the poorer for it.

Saturday, April 19, 2025

Why College Matters: Out of Touch with Social Class Realities

Serve Marketing's Why College Matters media campaign stacks the deck in favor of higher education and expects consumers to believe the story they tell. The problem with this campaign, and its anonymous funders, is that for many folks, college (and life after college) is problematic at best and oppressive at worst.

The Higher Education Disconnect: What Survey Results Miss About Americans' Real Concerns

The Why College Matters campaign presents data suggesting Americans' perceptions of higher education can be positively influenced through messaging. However, when compared with broader research on Americans' attitudes toward higher education, significant disconnects emerge. This analysis examines the gaps between the campaign's focus and the well-documented concerns Americans have about today's college experience.

The Financial Reality Gap: Debt and Affordability Concerns

The Why College Matters campaign notably avoids addressing one of the most pressing issues facing Americans considering higher education: the financial burden. This omission creates a fundamental disconnect with public sentiment.

Student Debt as a Life-Altering Burden

Recent research shows that 70% of middle-income Americans believe student loans are impacting their ability to achieve financial prosperity5. The psychological burden is equally significant, with 54% of student borrowers experiencing mental health challenges directly attributed to their debt load, including anxiety (56%) and depression (approximately 33%)8.

The campaign's focus on abstract benefits like "growing America's economic prosperity" fails to acknowledge that for many individuals, the immediate economic reality is far less promising. Student borrowers report delaying major life milestones including starting families, purchasing homes, and pursuing careers they're passionate about due to debt constraints8.

The Middle-Class Squeeze

While the campaign targets adults without college degrees as a key demographic, it misses that middle-class families face particularly acute challenges. These families often find themselves in a precarious position - too wealthy to qualify for significant need-based aid but not wealthy enough to comfortably afford college expenses13. This "middle-class squeeze" represents a significant disconnect between survey messaging and lived experience.

The Employment Reality Disconnect

Perhaps the most striking omission in the campaign's framing is the reality of post-graduation employment outcomes, which directly contradicts the economic benefit messaging.

Widespread Underemployment

Research from the Burning Glass Institute reveals a sobering statistic: 52% of recent four-year college graduates are underemployed a year after graduation, holding jobs that don't require a bachelor's degree14. Even more concerning, 45% still don't hold college-level jobs a decade after graduation14. This creates a fundamental disconnect when the campaign emphasizes workforce development without acknowledging this reality.

The "First Job Trap"

The survey frames higher education as broadly beneficial for workforce development but fails to address what researchers call the "first job trap." Data shows that 73% of graduates who start their careers in below-college-level jobs remain underemployed a decade after graduation14. This presents a significantly different picture than the campaign's simplified message about maintaining a skilled workforce.

Credential Inflation: The Devaluing Degree

The campaign messaging presumes that increased educational attainment inherently produces positive outcomes, without addressing the phenomenon of credential inflation that undermines this assumption.

Degrees as Diminishing Returns

Credential inflation refers to the declining value of educational credentials over time, creating a scenario where jobs that once required a high school diploma now demand bachelor's degrees, and positions that required bachelor's degrees now require master's or doctorates11. This creates a paradoxical situation where more education is simultaneously more necessary yet less valuable - a nuance entirely absent from the campaign narrative.

Opportunity Costs Unacknowledged

The campaign frames college primarily through its benefits, without acknowledging significant opportunity costs identified in research. These include delayed savings, fewer years in the workforce, postponement of family formation, and accumulation of debt11. This one-sided framing creates a disconnect with the lived experience of many Americans weighing these very real tradeoffs.

The Growing Generational Divide

The campaign's focus on adults aged 35-64 misses a critical demographic: younger generations who express the most skepticism about higher education's value.

Gen Z's Value Perception Crisis

Only 39% of Gen Z respondents in one study said advancing their education is important to them, and 46% don't believe college is worth the cost15. This represents a fundamental shift in attitude that the campaign's methodology doesn't capture, creating another disconnect between messaging and emerging social reality.

The Civic Disconnection Context

Research on youth disconnection shows broader trends of civic disengagement, with young Americans becoming less connected to community institutions generally1 9. The campaign's framing of higher education as building community connection happens against this backdrop of declining civic participation - context that provides important nuance missing from the survey design.

Mental Health Concerns: The Hidden Cost

Perhaps the most significant omission in the campaign's messaging is the documented mental health impact of the higher education experience, particularly related to financial strain.

Student Debt as Mental Health Crisis

Research demonstrates clear links between student loan debt and mental health challenges. Beyond anxiety and depression, the financial burden of education impacts overall wellbeing in ways unacknowledged by the campaign messaging8 16.

Postponed Lives and Dreams

The psychological impact of delayed life milestones due to educational debt creates stress that extends far beyond graduation. Student borrowers report putting their lives on hold - a reality that contradicts the campaign's emphasis on "keeping alive the American dream"8.

Ideological and Cultural Concerns

The campaign notably avoids addressing concerns about campus culture and ideological homogeneity that research shows are significant factors in changing attitudes toward higher education.

Faculty Ideological Imbalance

Research from Harvard University reveals striking ideological homogeneity among faculty, with 37% identifying as "very liberal" and just 1% as "conservative"12. This imbalance contributes to perceptions of higher education as disconnected from the values of many Americans - particularly explaining why the campaign struggled to persuade conservative Americans that "higher education plays a critical role in maintaining a healthy democracy."

Conclusion: Bridging the Perception Gap

The Why College Matters campaign demonstrates that positive messaging can improve abstract perceptions of higher education's value. However, for these improved perceptions to translate into meaningful change in Americans' relationship with higher education, campaigns must address the substantive concerns documented in research.

The disconnects identified here - regarding debt, employment outcomes, credential inflation, generational attitudes, mental health impacts, and ideological concerns - represent real issues that significantly impact Americans' decisions about higher education. Any campaign seeking to genuinely improve perceptions of higher education's value must engage with these realities rather than focusing solely on abstract benefits.

Simply improving "feelings" about higher education without addressing concrete problems risks further widening the gap between institutional messaging and public experience - potentially eroding rather than building trust in higher education as an institution.

Citations:

Friday, April 18, 2025

The Haves and Have Nots of Higher Education and Student Loan Debt

In a move that has raised eyebrows across Washington and beyond, President Donald Trump recently announced a plan to transfer the U.S. Department of Education’s vast student loan portfolio—totaling a staggering $1.8 trillion—to the Small Business Administration (SBA). This bold step is ostensibly designed to streamline the management of federal student loans, but it is also seen by many as the first move in a larger effort to dismantle the Department of Education entirely, reduce federal oversight, and privatize key aspects of the student loan system. Alongside this plan, there are growing discussions about eliminating essential borrower protections, including programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF), Pay As You Earn (PAYE), Income-Contingent Repayment (ICR), and the Borrower Defense to Repayment program, all of which have offered critical relief to millions of students. Additionally, the rollback of Gainful Employment regulations—which were designed to protect students from predatory for-profit institutions—further signals a shift toward private sector control, which has historically benefited lenders over borrowers.

The Alleged 'Rescue' of the Loan Portfolio

The White House has framed the transfer of the student loan portfolio to the SBA as a necessary step to relieve the Department of Education (ED) of a heavy burden, positioning the SBA as the new “caretaker” of the nation’s student debt. According to President Trump, the SBA—under the leadership of Kelly Loeffler—will now handle the $1.8 trillion student loan portfolio, while the Department of Education focuses on other key educational initiatives.

For some, the move seems like a fresh approach to a problem that has long plagued U.S. higher education: the overwhelming student debt crisis. However, a deeper look into the mechanics of the transfer suggests that this could be the first step toward a far more troubling goal: the dismantling of the federal student loan system and the privatization of debt, a shift that could harm millions of consumers in the process.

The SBA’s Inexperience with Student Loans

The SBA, traditionally tasked with managing small business loans, lacks the expertise to effectively manage the complex structure of federal student loans, which include income-driven repayment plans, loan forgiveness programs, and various protections for struggling borrowers. With the agency also facing significant staffing cuts, it’s highly unlikely that the SBA will be able to competently handle such a vast and complicated portfolio—especially when 40% of these loans are already in default or behind on payments.

This raises an obvious question: is the SBA being set up to fail? Some insiders suggest that the failure of the SBA to properly manage the student loan portfolio could be deliberate—creating a crisis that would justify selling off the portfolio to private companies, thus privatizing the entire system.

The Planned Failure: A Strategy for Privatization?

According to several former senior officials within the Department of Education, the transfer of the student loan portfolio to the SBA could be a calculated move to destabilize the federal loan system. The apparent failure of the SBA to manage the loans would then serve as a justification for transferring the loans to the private sector. This mirrors tactics used in other sectors where privatization was pursued under the guise of government inefficiency. The fear is that this move could ultimately lead to for-profit companies taking over the loan system, with borrowers facing higher interest rates, stricter repayment terms, and the loss of essential protections.

Who Stands to Gain from Privatizing Student Loans?

The shift toward privatizing student loans stands to benefit several key players in the financial and educational sectors, particularly for-profit companies and private lenders who have long pushed for deregulation and profit-driven management of student debt. The primary beneficiaries would include:

Private Lenders and Financial Institutions: Banks, investment firms, and loan servicing companies are the most obvious winners in a privatized student loan system. With the federal government stepping back, these entities would gain control over the $1.8 trillion portfolio, allowing them to set higher interest rates, stricter repayment terms, and impose fees on borrowers. This would turn student loans into even more lucrative financial products for the private sector.
For-Profit Educational Institutions: For-profit colleges, which often rely on student loans to fund their operations, could also stand to gain. These institutions—many of which have faced significant scrutiny for high tuition costs and poor student outcomes—would benefit from a less regulated environment. Without the Gainful Employment regulations, which were designed to hold these institutions accountable for their job placement and earnings data, they would face fewer restrictions on their recruitment practices and financial dealings, potentially allowing them to continue enrolling students in expensive, low-quality programs.
Servicers and Debt Collection Agencies: Loan servicers and debt collection agencies that would likely take over the management of student loans in a privatized system stand to profit greatly. By controlling the servicing of student loans, these companies can increase their fees and aggressively pursue defaulting borrowers, further exacerbating the financial hardship for many students. These entities would benefit from a less regulated environment where the focus would shift toward profitability, often at the expense of borrowers.
Political Donors and Lobbyists: Financial institutions and for-profit education providers have historically been major political donors and lobbyists, particularly to policymakers who have pushed for deregulation of student loan systems. Privatization could provide these stakeholders with the opportunity to consolidate their power over the student loan industry, influencing policy decisions in their favor and ensuring continued access to profits from the student loan market.

A History of Struggles: Lack of Oversight and Privatization Since the 1980s

The idea of privatizing student loans and dismantling federal oversight is not entirely new. In fact, the U.S. student loan system has been struggling for decades due to a lack of oversight and a trend toward privatization dating back to the 1980s. The federal government’s role as a guarantor of student loans—starting with the creation of the Guaranteed Student Loan (GSL) program in the 1960s—was eventually scaled back, leading to a rise in private student loans. As private lenders entered the student loan market, particularly during the 1990s and 2000s, the system became increasingly unregulated, leading to rising debt levels and predatory lending practices.

By the 1980s, the federal government’s reliance on private institutions to handle student loans led to a lack of transparency, accountability, and consumer protections. In particular, private lenders began to offer loans with fewer safeguards, contributing to the explosion of student loan debt and the proliferation of for-profit colleges that preyed on vulnerable students. The government, despite its involvement, increasingly stepped back from actively managing the loan system, leaving students with limited options for relief when they fell into financial distress.

The Consequences of Deregulation: Elite Colleges and the Growing Educated Underclass

One of the most significant byproducts of the shift toward privatization and deregulation in U.S. higher education has been the growth of a growing educated underclass. While elite colleges have continued to thrive, expanding their endowments and increasing their tuition fees, a large segment of the population is left with a degree and overwhelming debt that fails to deliver on its promise. Over the past several decades, prestigious universities have only gotten wealthier, with many now sitting on endowments of billions of dollars. These institutions benefit from the student loan system, which allows students to take on more debt to afford high tuition costs, all while their wealthy alumni networks and expansive endowments only grow larger.

At the same time, a growing number of students from lower-income backgrounds—many of whom attend for-profit or underfunded public colleges—are graduating with significant debt and few prospects for stable, high-paying careers. This has created a growing “educated underclass,” where graduates with degrees struggle to find employment that pays enough to manage their loan repayment, further exacerbating wealth inequality.

The Dangers of Future Issues: AI, Automation, and the Loss of Good Jobs

Looking to the future, the privatization of student loans and the increasing burden of student debt could be exacerbated by emerging technological shifts, particularly in the fields of artificial intelligence (AI) and automation. As industries evolve and more jobs become automated, many middle-class careers traditionally accessible to graduates may disappear or evolve into low-wage, low-security positions. This could lead to an even larger divide between the "haves" and "have-nots" in society, where only those with connections or elite educational backgrounds can secure stable, high-paying employment.

For students entering the workforce with massive student loan debt, this would present a troubling scenario where their ability to repay their loans becomes even more difficult as fewer well-paying jobs are available. This, in turn, would increase the financial strain on future generations of students who are already navigating a rapidly changing job market. For many, student loans could become an insurmountable barrier, keeping them trapped in cycles of debt that are impossible to escape.

Moreover, the increasing reliance on private companies to manage student loans, with their focus on profitability, could exacerbate these issues by offering fewer opportunities for income-driven repayment plans or relief options that account for the economic realities of an AI-powered, automation-driven economy. As the job market continues to shrink and evolve, the need for federal programs to support borrowers through tough economic times will only grow.

The Impact of Eliminating Borrower Protections

The elimination of borrower protections—such as PSLF, PAYE, ICR, and Borrower Defense to Repayment—would significantly worsen the student loan crisis. Public Service Loan Forgiveness, for example, allows individuals working in essential public service careers to receive loan forgiveness after ten years of qualifying payments. Without this program, many public servants would face a lifetime of insurmountable debt. Similarly, income-driven repayment programs allow borrowers to repay loans based on their income, making it easier for those in low-paying fields to manage their debt.

The Borrower Defense to Repayment program provides vital relief to students who were defrauded by their institutions. Without strong enforcement of this program, students may have no recourse to seek relief from predatory schools. The rollback of Gainful Employment regulations could further expose students to the risks of attending for-profit institutions that fail to deliver on their promises.

The Long-Term Fallout: A Dangerous Precedent

The long-term consequences of privatizing student loans could include exacerbating wealth inequality, widening the racial wealth gap, and creating an economic landscape where education debt is a permanent burden on a generation of students. If privatization moves forward, the financial burden of education will likely become a far more persistent and overwhelming problem, especially for those who can least afford it.

What’s particularly concerning is that in past crises, it’s the elites—wealthy colleges, financial institutions, and large corporations—that have consistently received the bulk of government bailouts. The same institutions that contribute the least to solving the country’s educational inequities continue to benefit from taxpayer-funded relief. If privatization moves forward, we cannot allow the same pattern to repeat itself. The majority of relief should go to those most burdened by student debt, not those who already have the means to navigate the system with ease.

The Future of Higher Education Debt: A Call to Protect Federal Loan Programs

At the Higher Education Inquirer, we stand in full support of federal student loan forgiveness and repayment programs, including PSLF, PAYE, and ICR, as they offer essential pathways for borrowers, especially public service workers and low-income individuals. These programs provide vital relief to borrowers, allowing them to focus on their careers without the burden of overwhelming debt. We urge policymakers to protect, enhance, and expand these vital initiatives to ensure that education remains accessible and equitable for all.

As we continue to face challenges in higher education financing, it is crucial to learn from past mistakes and advocate for systems that prioritize the well-being of students, not profit. The proposed privatization of the student loan system threatens to undo decades of progress and burden future generations with lifelong debt. It is essential that we protect these programs and work toward a solution that prioritizes education and fairness over corporate interests.

Search This Blog