HELU's Wall-to-Wall and Coast-to-Coast Report – April 2025 (Higher Ed Labor United)

 

April 2025 HELU Chair’s Message – May Day Strong From Levin Kim, HELU Chair Over the first 100 days of the Trump Administration, higher ed workers from coast to coast have been fighting back against attacks on critical lifesaving research, on immigrant workers, on education and research in the public interest. We’re in the fight of our lives, for our work, our communities, and our future.  Despite alarming news on the daily—from students and workers removed from our campuses, firings, program closures, government intervention in classroom curriculum, and brazen attacks on academic freedom—we refuse to be immobilised into inaction because we know a better world is possible if we fight for it. We’re standing up for the future of higher ed by building a wall-to-wall, coast-to-coast movement of workers ready to organize, to fight, and to win. Now is the time for coalition-building, for moving your coworkers to take action together, and getting out in the streets. Find and attend a May Day event near you tomorrow, and stay tuned for more ways to take action.    Learn more and find a May 1 event near you Solidarity Asks STRIKE SUPPORT: University of Oregon Student Workers on strike starting April 29 Donate: UR Grad Labor Union Strike and Hardship Fund Salem, OR on May 8 –  HANDS OFF: HIGHER EDUCATION RALLY  Sign: Unite to Defend Arizona Public Education Against Federal Attacks Support a fair contract for Lane Community College faculty Wellesley Organized Academic Workers – Help us win a contract! From the HELU Blog: Visa Revocations at Binghamton University Reflect Broader National Crackdown Over 1,000 international students across more than 170 colleges and universities in at least 40 states have reportedly had their visas revoked. The administration’s actions have often been sudden and lacking clear explanations, leading to confusion and fear within academic communities. As the situation continues to evolve, it is imperative for academic institutions and communities to remain vigilant and supportive of international students, faculty, and staff. The potential for further visa revocations and the broader implications for academic freedom and free speech necessitate a collective response to uphold the values of higher education... Read more.   Delegates: Think about running for HELU officer positions! HELU will be conducting elections for new leadership in at the quarterly General Assembly in November 2025. They will serve from January 2026 to January 2028. There has never been a more important time for higher ed activists from all job positions in the higher ed workforce to step up and keep the ball rolling... Read more. Higher Ed Labor in the News As Universities Yield to Trump, Higher Ed Unions Are Fighting Union: Police Raids Targeted Michigan Palestine Activists More Than 150 Campuses Held Day of Action Against Trump’s Attacks on Higher Ed Most Higher Ed Workers Still Paid Less Than Before Pandemic Puerto Rico Protests Against Higher Ed Cuts Follow Long Fight Against Austerity Want to support our work? Make a contribution. We invite you to support HELU's work by making a direct financial contribution. While HELU's main source of income is solidarity pledges from member organizations, these funds from individuals help us to grow capacity as we work to align the higher ed labor movement. Contribute to HELU

The Role of U.S. Higher Education in Mass Surveillance: A Cornerstone of Authoritarianism and Fascism

In the digital age, surveillance has become a pervasive aspect of daily life. It reaches far beyond the government’s watchful eye; it infiltrates our personal spaces, our interactions, and even our educational institutions. In the United States, universities and colleges—typically seen as bastions of free thought and intellectual exploration—have, over the years, quietly embraced practices that align more with authoritarian surveillance than the fostering of academic freedom. The result is an unsettling convergence of education, technology, and control that deserves close scrutiny.

The Rise of Mass Surveillance in U.S. Higher Education

Mass surveillance is not a concept confined solely to government agencies or the private sector. U.S. colleges and universities have increasingly adopted surveillance technologies, often in ways that blur the lines between student safety, security, and governmental overreach. The methods used are diverse: from sophisticated digital monitoring of online activity to the installation of cameras throughout campuses, as well as the tracking of students’ movements and behaviors.

On-Campus Surveillance

Many campuses are equipped with thousands of security cameras, often without students' knowledge of the exact extent of their monitoring. These cameras track students' movements around buildings, dorms, and even outdoor spaces. Security personnel, working alongside private contractors, have access to this footage, creating a network of real-time surveillance. Additionally, some universities have partnered with police departments or government entities to share data from campus surveillance, effectively extending the government’s reach into spaces historically seen as separate from state control.

In some instances, universities have utilized facial recognition technology—a tool that, while growing in popularity among law enforcement and private corporations, is still highly controversial due to concerns about privacy, accuracy, and racial biases. Campuses like the University of California, Berkeley, and George Washington University have implemented or explored the use of facial recognition, drawing criticism from civil rights groups who argue that such technologies contribute to surveillance regimes that disproportionately target marginalized communities.

Digital Surveillance: Monitoring Online Activity

In the realm of digital surveillance, universities have also emerged as key players. The rapid digitization of academic spaces has made it easier for educational institutions to monitor and record students' online activities, including emails, internet browsing habits, and even participation in online discussions. These tools, ostensibly designed to protect students from online threats or cheating, can also be used to track the political views or social connections of students and faculty members.

University systems that monitor students' academic behavior are often integrated with third-party services that collect vast amounts of data. Companies like Google, which provide software for research and communication, have been instrumental in creating environments where personal data can be easily harvested and stored. As a result, students and faculty members are under constant scrutiny, even if they are unaware of the depth of data being collected on them.

Off-Campus Surveillance and Law Enforcement

While much of the surveillance happens on university grounds, the cooperation between educational institutions and law enforcement extends far beyond campus boundaries. Many universities share information with federal agencies like the FBI or local police departments, creating a synergy of surveillance that goes beyond the walls of academia. This collaboration is often justified as part of maintaining national security or preventing crimes, but it carries profound implications for privacy and civil liberties.

After the 9/11 attacks, for example, universities in the U.S. were encouraged to collaborate with federal intelligence agencies under the auspices of the USA PATRIOT Act and other anti-terrorism measures. This led to the surveillance of students’ political activities, associations, and even participation in protests. While much of this occurred covertly, the ramifications were far-reaching, particularly for marginalized groups who found themselves disproportionately surveilled due to their activism.

Surveillance of International Students: A First Step Toward Widespread Control

One of the most chilling aspects of surveillance on U.S. campuses is the specific targeting of international students. Historically, international students have been a vulnerable demographic in the context of surveillance and control. This began in earnest post-9/11, when the U.S. government imposed stricter regulations on foreign students, requiring universities to report on students' status, academic performance, and even their physical locations.

The Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) was established to track international students in real-time, linking student data to immigration and law enforcement agencies. While this system was presented as a means of ensuring national security, it effectively treated international students as suspects, placing them under heightened scrutiny. Universities, in turn, became instruments of surveillance, forced to comply with federal mandates to report any changes in a student's enrollment status, academic performance, or even the duration of their stay in the U.S.

For international students, this surveillance has been particularly invasive, as their movements—whether related to academic matters or personal lives—are constantly monitored by both their institutions and government entities. The stigma of being under the microscope contributes to a sense of alienation and powerlessness. It also encourages conformity, making it difficult for international students to freely express political or ideological dissent for fear of jeopardizing their academic status or immigration status.

The Threat of TPUSA’s Professor Watchlist

Another troubling element of surveillance within higher education is the growing trend of surveillance outside official university systems. Conservative student groups, particularly Turning Point USA (TPUSA), have taken it upon themselves to monitor and track the activities of professors whose political views they deem “liberal” or “left-wing.” One of TPUSA’s most controversial initiatives has been the creation of the Professor Watchlist, which compiles and publicly names professors accused of engaging in “liberal indoctrination” or promoting “liberal agendas.”

While TPUSA claims the Professor Watchlist is a tool to expose bias in academia, its purpose appears to be less about fostering academic debate and more about intimidating faculty members and curbing academic freedom. Professors listed on the watchlist are often subjected to harassment, threats, and, in some cases, professional repercussions, as conservative groups or donors seek to pressure universities into disciplining or firing faculty. The Watchlist represents a form of extrajudicial surveillance—non-governmental in origin but with highly political aims.

The real danger of such initiatives lies in their ability to undermine the independence of higher education. It is not just the professors listed who are impacted, but the entire academic community. Faculty members may begin to self-censor, avoiding controversial or politically sensitive topics for fear of being targeted, and students may find their ability to engage in free inquiry increasingly stifled.

The Professor Watchlist serves as a reminder that surveillance of academic institutions is not just the work of government agencies or private corporations; it is also deeply politicized, with various ideological groups using the tools of surveillance to exert control over education and the intellectual freedoms that it should represent.

Little Resistance: The Silence of Academia

Despite these troubling developments, resistance within academia has been minimal. Universities, which are supposed to serve as protectors of free speech, intellectual diversity, and civil liberties, have largely failed to challenge the growing surveillance apparatus both on and off their campuses. This silence is not without reason—many academic institutions have willingly participated in these surveillance efforts, citing concerns over campus security, student safety, and the desire to combat terrorism.

Additionally, many students and faculty members have become desensitized to surveillance. A generation raised in the digital age, where privacy is increasingly an afterthought and constant connectivity is the norm, may not fully grasp the implications of mass surveillance. Those who do speak out often find themselves at odds with institutional priorities or are silenced by threats of punishment, surveillance of their own activities, or other forms of retaliation.

The fear of retribution has also led to a chilling effect on dissent. Students who voice political opinions, especially those that challenge the status quo, may find themselves under increased scrutiny. This environment creates a culture where conformity reigns, and open discourse is stifled, not necessarily by overt repression, but by the omnipresent surveillance that discourages any behavior that might be deemed "out of line."

Mass Surveillance as a Tool of Authoritarianism and Fascism

The convergence of surveillance practices on college campuses with broader state interests should not be dismissed as incidental. Throughout history, mass surveillance has been a hallmark of authoritarian and fascist regimes. From Stalinist Russia to Nazi Germany, the power to monitor and control individuals through surveillance has been a tool used by oppressive governments to stifle dissent, control behavior, and consolidate power.

In a fascist regime, surveillance serves not just as a means of security, but as a tool of indoctrination and social control. The existence of surveillance constantly reminds individuals that they are being watched, creating a pervasive sense of fear and self-censorship. The same mechanism is increasingly visible in today’s U.S. higher education system, where students and faculty members may unconsciously internalize the need to comply with institutional norms, which are often shaped by external pressures from governmental and corporate entities.

The Implications for Democracy

The implications of this trend are far-reaching. When educational institutions no longer stand as a safe space for the free exchange of ideas, when they themselves become complicit in the surveillance of their own communities, it erodes the very foundation of democratic society. Free thought and intellectual exploration—the core tenets of higher education—cannot thrive in an atmosphere of constant monitoring and fear.

Mass surveillance on campuses also reinforces systemic inequalities. As surveillance technologies disproportionately affect marginalized groups—whether due to racial profiling, political dissent, or nationality—it contributes to a broader structure of control that undermines the principles of equal treatment and justice. In a society where the surveillance state extends into universities, it’s not hard to imagine a future where academic freedom becomes a thing of the past, with institutions serving instead as instruments of political and corporate control.

Conclusion

The role of U.S. higher education in the rise of mass surveillance—both on and off-campus—raises serious concerns about privacy, freedom, and the future of democratic values. Universities, which once stood as symbols of intellectual autonomy, are now complicit in the surveillance mechanisms that have come to define authoritarian and fascist regimes. The lack of widespread resistance from within academia only exacerbates the situation, highlighting the need for a renewed commitment to the values of free thought and privacy.

If we are to preserve the integrity of higher education as a space for critical thinking and dissent, we must confront the creeping normalization of surveillance in these institutions. It’s time for students, faculty, and administrators to take a stand, not just against the overt surveillance on campus, but against the creeping authoritarianism that it represents in the broader context of our society. The fight for academic freedom and privacy is not just a fight for the rights of students and educators—it’s a fight for the soul of democracy itself.

Department of Veterans Affairs Delays Answering Questions on GI Bill Complaints

 

Trends and Challenges in Higher Education Non-Exempt Staff Workforce: Insights from CUPA-HR's April 2025 Report

The landscape of higher education staffing is undergoing significant transformations, as highlighted in the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR) April 2025 report, The Non-Exempt Higher Education Staff Workforce: Trends in Composition, Size, and Pay Equity. This comprehensive study delves into the evolving composition, size, and pay equity of non-exempt staff within U.S. colleges and universities from the 2016–17 to 2023–24 academic years.

The Higher Education Inquirer has been reporting on the College Meltdown since 2016, tracking the unraveling of institutional stability across much of U.S. higher education. Our coverage has especially focused on declining college enrollment at for-profit colleges, community colleges, small state universities, and private colleges and universities—sectors hit hardest by demographic shifts, rising costs, and growing public skepticism about the value of a college degree. The CUPA-HR report adds another layer to this narrative, highlighting how the backbone of campus operations—non-exempt staff—are being affected.

Declining Workforce Numbers

The report reveals a troubling trend: the non-exempt staff workforce has steadily declined over the past seven years. Full-time non-exempt positions dropped by 9%, while part-time roles fell by 8%. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated this decline, with full-time jobs shrinking by 3.3% and part-time roles plummeting by 17.2%.

Composition of the Workforce

Despite the shrinking workforce, non-exempt staff still made up 28% of the higher education labor force in 2023–24. This is significantly lower than in the overall U.S. economy, where non-exempt positions represent more than half of all jobs. These roles—custodians, electricians, administrative assistants, and dining hall workers—are essential to day-to-day campus functions.

Pay Equity Disparities

CUPA-HR also highlights ongoing inequities in compensation. Women and people of color remain underrepresented in the highest-paying non-exempt roles and often earn less than White male colleagues doing similar work. Pay disparities are especially pronounced for women over the age of 42 and for professionals of color at wealthier institutions—institutions that tend to employ more diverse staff, but pay them less.

Institutional Implications

These findings raise urgent questions about sustainability, morale, and service quality on campuses already under strain. As colleges confront declining enrollments, shrinking budgets, and demands for greater equity and accountability, the erosion of the non-exempt workforce risks compounding the challenges. Institutions must consider robust equity audits, fair compensation practices, and inclusive hiring and retention strategies.

Conclusion

CUPA-HR’s April 2025 study is a stark reminder that the College Meltdown is not only about enrollment and finances, but also about the people who keep campuses running. The non-exempt staff, often invisible in strategic planning discussions, are central to the student experience and institutional mission. Their declining numbers and ongoing inequities reflect deeper systemic problems that higher education leaders can no longer afford to ignore.

For more insights, visit the full report: The Non-Exempt Higher Education Staff Workforce: Trends in Composition, Size, and Pay Equity.

Maximus AidVantage

[Image of AidVantage operations in Greenville, Texas. Note the barbed wire fence.]

The recent decision to have the Small Business Administration (SBA) take over the federal student loan portfolio has sent shockwaves through the world of education finance. As the SBA — an agency traditionally focused on supporting small businesses — begins to manage a multi-billion dollar portfolio of student loans, borrowers, consumer protection advocates, and financial experts alike are left to question what this transition means for the future of loan servicing, borrower protections, and higher education financing.

At the heart of this shift is the role of Maximus AidVantage, one of the major student loan servicers handling federal loans. Maximus has already come under scrutiny for its inefficiency, poor customer service, and mishandling of crucial borrower programs, such as Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans. The company’s track record has led to widespread frustration, with many borrowers reporting significant issues, including misinformation, lost paperwork, and mistakes that have placed them at risk of financial hardship.

Yet, despite these concerns, Maximus has maintained its position at the helm of federal student loan servicing. Its CEO, Bruce Caswell, has been compensated handsomely for overseeing the company’s role in this controversial space. According to recent financial reports, Caswell’s total compensation has included a base salary of over $1.3 million, with total compensation often exceeding $8 million when accounting for bonuses, stock options, and other forms of remuneration. This high pay, especially in light of the company’s poor performance in customer service and loan servicing, raises questions about the priorities of both the company and the federal government, which continues to entrust Maximus with managing the finances of millions of borrowers.

The Shift to the SBA: A Lack of Expertise

The most immediate concern surrounding the SBA’s takeover of student loan management is its lack of expertise in this field. The SBA’s core mission has been to assist small businesses, offering loan guarantees and financial support to promote economic growth. While it is well-equipped to manage business loans, the agency has no experience dealing with the unique and complex needs of student loan borrowers. Federal student loans involve intricate repayment plans, borrower protections, and specialized programs like PSLF, all of which require a deep understanding of the educational sector and the financial struggles of students and graduates.

Transferring such an important and complex responsibility to the SBA without a clear plan for adaptation could lead to mismanagement, inefficiencies, and disruptions for millions of borrowers. The SBA simply isn’t set up to handle issues like loan forgiveness, income-driven repayment plans, and the variety of special accommodations that are necessary for student borrowers. If the SBA isn’t adequately staffed or resourced to take on these new responsibilities, students could be left in the lurch, facing delays, confusion, and even errors in their loan servicing.

A Confusing Transition for Borrowers

For those already dealing with the intricacies of federal student loans, this transition to the SBA is likely to create a significant amount of confusion. Student loan borrowers rely on clear communication, accurate account management, and timely assistance when navigating repayment plans. The Department of Education has long been the agency responsible for ensuring that these programs are managed effectively, but with the SBA taking over, borrowers may face new systems, new contacts, and, potentially, a lack of clarity about their loan status.

One of the biggest risks in this transition is the potential disruption of critical loan repayment programs, such as PSLF, which allows public service workers to have their loans forgiven after ten years of payments. These programs require careful management to ensure that borrowers meet the necessary qualifications. The SBA is not accustomed to handling such programs and may struggle to maintain the same level of efficiency and accuracy, especially if the agency does not prioritize dedicated support for student loan borrowers.

Diminished Consumer Protections

Perhaps the most concerning outcome of the SBA taking over student loans is the potential erosion of consumer protections. The Department of Education has a specific mandate to protect borrowers, which includes holding loan servicers accountable for mishandling accounts and ensuring transparency in loan servicing practices. The SBA, however, has never been tasked with such consumer-focused regulations, and its shift to managing student loans raises concerns that borrower rights might not be adequately enforced.

For example, the SBA may not have the resources or inclination to monitor loan servicers like Maximus closely, allowing them to continue engaging in deceptive practices without fear of regulatory repercussions. The agency might also be less likely to step in when borrowers face issues such as misapplied payments, incorrect information about forgiveness programs, or poorly managed accounts. With the SBA’s focus on business rather than consumer welfare, student loan borrowers may find themselves facing more hurdles without the protections that the Department of Education once provided.

The Impact on Repayment and Forgiveness Programs

Another pressing issue is the potential disruption of repayment and forgiveness programs under SBA oversight. Programs like Income-Driven Repayment (IDR), designed to help borrowers pay off their loans based on their income, require careful management and regular updates. Similarly, the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program is highly specific and requires rigorous tracking of borrowers’ payments and work history to ensure they qualify for forgiveness after ten years.

If the SBA is not adequately equipped to handle these specialized programs, borrowers might find themselves in a precarious position, especially if their loans are mismanaged or if they are denied forgiveness due to administrative errors. The confusion caused by the transition could delay or even derail borrowers’ efforts to achieve loan forgiveness, leaving them stuck with debt for longer than expected.

The Role of Maximus: Financial Incentives Amidst Failure

Amidst the uncertainty of this transition, Maximus continues to play a key role in servicing the federal student loan portfolio. Yet, despite its persistent failures in managing accounts and borrower relations, Maximus has remained highly profitable, with Bruce Caswell’s executive compensation reflecting this success in terms of revenue but not in terms of customer satisfaction.

Maximus’s reported $8 million in total compensation for Caswell, despite the company’s history of customer complaints, raises serious questions about priorities. While Maximus rakes in millions from servicing federal loans, borrowers are left to deal with the consequences of mistakes, misinformation, and poor service. In a system where the stakes are incredibly high for borrowers, this disparity between executive pay and customer service is concerning, especially in light of the SBA’s takeover, which promises more uncertainty.

Adding to the controversy, Maximus has also been involved in labor disputes with the Communications Workers of America (CWA), its workers' union. These disputes, which have centered on issues such as wages, benefits, and working conditions, further complicate the company’s already tarnished reputation. Workers have accused Maximus of engaging in unfair labor practices and failing to adequately support employees who are tasked with assisting borrowers. If these labor disputes continue to affect employee morale and productivity, it could lead to even worse service for borrowers who are already dealing with a complicated and frustrating loan servicing process. The combination of poor customer service, labor unrest, and executive compensation that seems out of sync with the company’s performance paints a troubling picture for the future of student loan management under Maximus.

The Threat of Reduced Loan Forgiveness and IDR Plans

Adding to the turmoil surrounding the future of student loans is the growing effort by the U.S. government to reduce or even eliminate key student loan forgiveness programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans. These programs were designed to provide crucial relief for borrowers working in public service or those struggling with debt relative to their income. However, recent reports suggest that the government may look to reduce eligibility for these programs, impose stricter requirements, or completely eliminate them altogether as part of broader fiscal policy adjustments.

The removal of or reductions to these programs would leave borrowers with fewer avenues to manage their debt, potentially increasing default rates and extending the time it takes for borrowers to repay their loans. For individuals in public service jobs or those facing financial hardship, these changes would have a devastating impact on their ability to achieve financial stability and pay down their student loans. If the SBA, with its lack of focus on education finance, inherits this responsibility without reinforcing these programs, borrowers might find themselves in a far worse position than ever before.

Furthermore, this reduction in borrower protections and streamlining of repayment options may also be part of a broader strategy to push more borrowers into private loan options, which could further exacerbate financial hardship for those who are already struggling. With private loans often carrying higher interest rates, less favorable repayment terms, and fewer options for deferral or forgiveness, such a shift would mark a significant pivot towards privatization, benefiting financial institutions while leaving borrowers with even fewer protections and much higher costs.

A Plan to Push Consumers Toward Private Loans?

Many experts are beginning to question whether the government’s plans for overhauling student loan servicing are part of a larger agenda to move borrowers toward private loans. By reducing or eliminating federal loan protections, forgiveness programs, and income-driven repayment options, the government may be attempting to create a vacuum in which private lenders can step in and offer alternative (and likely more expensive) financing options.

This push toward privatization could significantly increase profits for private lenders while making it harder for borrowers to repay their loans. With private loans lacking many of the protections and flexible repayment options offered by federal loans, such a shift could result in higher default rates and greater financial instability for borrowers, particularly for those with already high debt levels.

Conclusion: A New Era of Uncertainty

The transition of student loan servicing to the Small Business Administration represents a significant shift in the federal student loan system, one that could lead to inefficiencies, confusion, and a reduction in protections for borrowers. With agencies like Maximus AidVantage continuing to profit from loan servicing despite failing borrowers, ongoing labor disputes, and a focus on executive compensation over customer service, and the SBA stepping into a complex arena with limited experience, the future of student loan servicing seems fraught with challenges.

The push to reduce or eliminate key student loan forgiveness programs like PSLF and IDR only adds to the uncertainty, leaving millions of borrowers facing a potentially more difficult future. Moreover, the possibility of moving consumers toward private loans with fewer protections and harsher terms would deepen the financial struggles of many borrowers. This move underscores the importance of effective oversight and the need for federal agencies to prioritize the well-being of borrowers over financial interests. The student loan system should be about more than just revenue generation — it should be about supporting borrowers and ensuring that they can achieve financial freedom, not be left trapped in a cycle of debt and frustration. Without proper management, this new era of student loan servicing risks deepening the crisis for millions of Americans who are already struggling to keep up with their education-related debts.

International Students Increasingly Wary of Study in US

Since Donald Trump returned to the U.S. presidency in January 2025, international perceptions of American higher education have shifted dramatically. Around the globe, students, educators, and policymakers are reassessing the value, safety, and accessibility of studying or collaborating with U.S. institutions. Here is a snapshot of specific reactions from different parts of the world.

Growing Caution Among Prospective International Students

According to a Keystone Education Group survey, about 42% of international students said they are less likely to consider studying in the U.S. Concerns about visa restrictions, political instability, and potential discrimination have driven many to explore alternative destinations such as Canada, Australia, and Germany.

China: Escalating Distrust and Diversion

Chinese students and families, once the largest international cohort in U.S. higher education, are increasingly turning away from American universities. Recent visa revocations, national security allegations, and rising U.S.-China tensions have severely impacted perceptions. A Reuters report highlights that many Chinese students now prefer pursuing studies in the United Kingdom, Italy, or remaining within China's expanding higher education system.

United Kingdom: An Opportunistic Shift

British universities are actively courting students and researchers who might otherwise have chosen the U.S. In response to Trump's policies, institutions like Oxford and Cambridge are emphasizing their commitment to academic freedom, diversity, and international collaboration. The UK government has also streamlined visa processes to attract displaced academic talent.

Norway: Academic Haven Building

Norway has launched a new program aimed at luring top researchers away from American institutions. Framed as a defense of academic freedom and critical scientific research, this initiative offers generous funding packages, stable working environments, and a clear commitment to maintaining the autonomy of scholarship. Norwegian universities view this moment as an opportunity to boost their global standing.

European Union (General): Retreat and Redirection

Across the broader European Union, there is a sense of retreat from American partnerships. Universities in Germany, France, and the Netherlands are seeing increased interest from international students previously targeting the U.S. Meanwhile, collaborative research initiatives are pivoting towards intra-European or Asia-Europe partnerships, avoiding U.S.-centric agreements.

Latin America: Disillusionment and Regional Investment

Students and academics in Latin American nations such as Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia are increasingly disillusioned with the U.S. as an educational destination. Instead, there is growing investment in regional university systems and partnerships with European institutions. For many, the perception of an unwelcoming and politically unstable United States has made alternatives more attractive.

Australia and Canada: Beneficiaries of American Decline

Australia and Canada continue to benefit from the shifting landscape. Both countries are marketing themselves as safe, progressive, and welcoming alternatives to the U.S. for higher education. Universities in Melbourne, Toronto, Vancouver, and Sydney report record numbers of applications from international students.

Middle East: Caution and Cultural Shifts

In Gulf nations like the UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, caution dominates discussions around sending students to the U.S. Political tensions and concerns about racial profiling have led to a pivot toward local branch campuses of Western universities and institutions in Europe and Asia.

Conclusion

The "Trump 2.0" era has fundamentally altered the international image of American higher education. While elite institutions may weather the storm to some extent, the broader sector faces declining international enrollments, shrinking influence in global research, and a steady erosion of the "American Dream" narrative. In this moment of geopolitical and educational reconfiguration, U.S. higher education's dominance is no longer taken for granted.

---

Sources:

• Keystone Education Group Survey, 2025

• Reuters, April 2025: "Trump Visa Cuts and Tariff Hikes Turn Chinese Students Away"

• The Guardian, April 2025: "Norway Launches Scheme to Lure Top Researchers Away from US Universities"

• Washington Post, April 2025: "Trump's Crackdown on Foreign Students is a Gift to China"

• Times of India, April 2025: "42% of International Students Unlikely to Consider US"

"America, América": Greg Grandin on Latin American History, from Colonization to CECOT to Pope Francis (Democracy Now!)

We spend the hour with acclaimed historian Greg Grandin discussing his new book, America, América: A New History of the New World, which spans five centuries of North and South American history since the Spanish conquest, including the fight against fascism in the 1930s. He examines the U.S.-Latin American relationship under Trump, with a focus on El Salvador, Panama, Ecuador and Cuba. Grandin also has a new piece for The Intercept that draws on the book, headlined "The Long History of Lawlessness in U.S. Policy Toward Latin America." "If the United States really has given up its role as superintending a global liberal order and the world is reverting back to these kind of spheres of power competitions, then Latin America becomes, essentially, much more important," says Grandin. We also continue to examine the legacy of the late Pope Francis, the son of Italian immigrants to Argentina and the first pope from Latin America. Grandin shares how the Catholic Church's involvement in the conquest and colonization of the continent impacted the pope's beliefs. 

Democracy Now! is an independent global news hour that airs on over 1,500 TV and radio stations Monday through Friday. Watch our livestream at democracynow.org Mondays to Fridays 8-9 a.m. ET.

Trump is gutting what made American science great (Fareed Zakaria, CNN)

A New Era of Accountability: The Case for Taxing Universities with Legacy Admissions.

As debates around the fairness of college admissions continue to dominate headlines, a growing number of voices are calling for a fundamental change in how universities operate—especially when it comes to legacy admissions. Legacy admissions, a practice where children of alumni are given preferential treatment in the admissions process, have long been a controversial issue. Critics argue that these policies disproportionately benefit wealthy, predominantly white families, perpetuating cycles of privilege and inequality in higher education.

However, a new idea has emerged: what if universities that maintain legacy admissions policies were taxed? This radical proposal seeks to directly address the social and economic disparities that legacy admissions exacerbate. Let’s break down how this concept could work and why it may be an essential step toward greater fairness in higher education.

Legacy Admissions and Their Impact

Legacy admissions are widely seen as a way for universities to maintain strong alumni relations and secure large financial donations. While this may have practical advantages for universities, the social consequences are more troubling. Studies have shown that legacy students tend to come from wealthier backgrounds and are often already overrepresented in the student body of elite institutions.

For example, at Ivy League schools like Harvard and Yale, legacy students make up a disproportionately high percentage of the accepted class, despite often having lower academic performance metrics compared to their non-legacy peers. The practice has sparked outrage from students, parents, and activists who argue that it locks out deserving candidates from underrepresented communities, particularly students of color and first-generation college applicants.

The Taxation Proposal

The core of the proposed policy is simple: universities that admit a significant number of legacy students—say, 20% or more of the incoming class—would be required to pay a tax based on the proportion of legacy students admitted. This tax could be structured progressively, with higher taxes imposed on universities with a greater percentage of legacy admits. The funds raised could be earmarked for initiatives aimed at increasing diversity, providing scholarships for underrepresented students, or supporting public universities that offer accessible, low-cost education.

The argument for this approach is rooted in the idea that universities benefiting from preferential admissions policies should be held financially accountable for the social inequality they perpetuate. By taxing legacy admissions, we create an economic incentive for universities to reconsider these outdated practices and move toward a more equitable admissions process.

Economic and Social Benefits

1. Encouraging Diversity: Universities that rely on legacy admissions often argue that they are fostering long-term relationships with alumni and maintaining their traditions. However, the proposed tax would encourage schools to focus more on diversity and accessibility. With the additional tax burden, institutions would likely seek alternative ways to boost their endowments or attract alumni donations, potentially pushing them toward more inclusive, merit-based admissions policies.

2. Supporting Public Institutions: The revenue generated from taxing legacy admissions could be reinvested into public universities, which often face funding shortages and higher tuition rates. These schools serve a larger proportion of low-income and first-generation students, and additional funding could help close the equity gap between public and private universities.

3. Public Accountability: The tax system would provide an additional layer of public accountability for how universities operate, ensuring that schools with large endowments and large alumni bases do not perpetuate systems of privilege at the expense of broader societal equality.

Addressing Concerns

Opponents of this idea will likely argue that taxing universities could have unintended consequences, such as limiting the resources available for financial aid or academic programs. Some may also claim that legacy admissions serve a legitimate purpose in fostering strong alumni networks and ensuring continued donations.

However, these concerns fail to address the larger moral issue at stake: the perpetuation of privilege in higher education. Universities, especially those with large endowments, can afford to innovate and adapt. Many already provide substantial financial aid packages, and the taxes levied on legacy admissions would provide a direct opportunity to reinvest those resources into a more equitable future.

The Path Forward

In many ways, taxing legacy admissions is just one piece of the puzzle. A comprehensive reform agenda would also include revisiting standardized testing practices, increasing transparency in the admissions process, and offering more substantial financial aid packages to students from underrepresented backgrounds. However, the idea of using tax policy to address the inequities embedded in legacy admissions provides a concrete, measurable step forward.

It’s time for universities to evolve and embrace a future where access to higher education is based on merit, not on family connections or wealth. By taxing schools that perpetuate legacy admissions, we can push institutions to confront their role in social inequality and work toward a more inclusive and accessible system for all students.

Trump Versus Academia, April 25, 2025 (Bryan Alexander)

Here's my latest Trump and academia vlog report. If you’re new to this series, these videos are where I summarize what the Trump administration has been doing to higher education, and how colleges and universities have responded. Here are the latest developments since the last video, as of today, April 25, 2025. 

Previous episodes here:

  • Trump and higher education: report fr... 1 The Federal level 

Executive orders: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidenti...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidenti...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidenti...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheet...
https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-r...

EEOC texts: 

https://theintercept.com/2025/04/23/t...

National Science Foundation canceled grants: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/22/sc...

NSF’s director resigned: https://www.science.org/content/artic...

National Institutes of Health canceled The Women’s Health Initiative: https://www.science.org/content/artic...

Deportations and visa revocations of international students: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/g...

XKCD comic: https://xkcd.com/3081/

Democratic members of Congress visiting Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/04/2...

Legal challenges: 

https://apnews.com/article/internatio...
https://abc7chicago.com/post/us-stude...
https://katu.com/news/local/federal-j...
https://wgme.com/news/local/aclu-file...

In previous videos I’ve paused to read the names of academics seized or threatened with deportation by these offices, the names of people like Rasha Alawieh. Yunseo Chung. Alireza Doroudi. Doğukan Günaydın. Mahmoud Khalil. Leqaa Kordia. Rumeysa Ozturk. Kseniia Petrova. Ranjani Srinivasan. Badar Khan Suri. Momodou Taal. 2 Academic reactions Trump on Harvard and one lawyer on Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTr...

Boycotting: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1L...

Research Council of Norway: https://www.theguardian.com/education...

I hope this video summary has been of use to you. Please share your thoughts, additions, and other reactions in the comment box below. If you don’t feel you can comment publicly, please reach out to me directly through the contact link at the end of today’s show notes. Given the pace of events, I’ll try to post these videos more frequently. This is a rough, dark time for those of us in higher education. It seems likely to get worse. I hope we can help each other out - and fight. Please take care, everyone. https://bryanalexander.org/contact-br...

Intro and outro sound: https://freesound.org/people/envirOma...

DOD continues to shield bad actor schools that prey upon military servicemembers

For more than seven years, we have been waiting to obtain information from the US Department of Defense (DOD) about schools that prey upon servicemembers using DOD Tuition Assistance to further their college aspirations. And we have done it at our peril, repeatedly taking flak from people in DC.  

As the Higher Education Inquirer reported earlier, DOD and these schools have had questionable relationships with these schools going back to the 1980s, with the for-profit college takeover of CCME, the Council of College and Military Educators.  

Those who follow the higher education business know the names of the bad actors, some that are still in business (like the University of Phoenix and Colorado Tech) and some that have closed (like ITT Tech and the Art Institutes). Others have morphed into arms of state universities (Kaplan University becoming Purdue University Global and Ashford University becoming University of Arizona Global). 

Accountability was supposed to happen during the Obama administration (with Executive Order 13607) but those rules were not fully implemented. Under the first Trump administration, these safeguards were largely ignored, and bad actor schools faced no penalties.  

Some of these scandals were reported in the media, and have been forgotten.

On April 1, 2025 we were again supposed to receive information about these bad actor schools, and the DOD officials who were complicit.  It didn't happen. That FOIA (22-1203) which was initiated in July 2022 is now scheduled for a reply on July 3, 2025, three years from the original submission. 

Previous FOIAs from 2019 also came up with no information.  And requests for information in 2017 from DOD officials were met with harassment from other parties. 

The only thing we can be grateful for is that DOD continues to communicate with us. 

 

Related links:

Trump's DOD Failed to Protect Servicemembers from Bad Actor Colleges, But We Demand More Evidence 

DoD review: 0% of schools following TA rules (Military Times, 2018)

Schools are struggling to meet TA rules, but DoD isn’t punishing them. Here’s why. (Military Times, 2019)

Trump Admin announces it will throw borrowers into mandatory collections. (Student Borrower Protection Center)

The Trump Administration unleashed several attacks on students, student loan borrowers, and their families this week. On Wednesday, President Trump signed a flurry of executive orders impacting students, families, and higher education. Meanwhile, at the start of this week, the Trump Administration also announced plans to start subjecting millions of struggling borrowers in default to mandatory collections. Read our statement:

Advocates Slam Trump Administration for Throwing Millions of Americans With Student Debt Into the Jaws of Government Collections Machine Move Comes as Millions of Americans Are Struggling to Navigate Unprecedented Economic Uncertainty and Record Number of Americans With Student Loan Debt Are Behind on Student Loan Bills April 21, 2025 | WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the Trump Administration announced plans to begin subjecting millions of Americans in default to mandatory collections, including wage garnishment, tax refund, and Social Security benefit offsets. According to the Administration’s announcement, starting on May 5, 2025, borrowers will begin receiving collection notices through the U.S. Treasury Offset Program with administrative wage garnishment expected to resume later in the summer. The decision to resume the government’s collections machine marks the first time in five years that the federal government will penalize Americans who fall behind on their student loan payments. The announcement also comes as Americans are navigating unprecedented economic uncertainty—struggling to cover the rising costs of everyday goods, dealing with the economic fallout of mass firings of more than 24,000 federal workers all while being unable to access the full suite of affordable repayment options to help better manage their student loans. Today’s announcement referenced a future “robust communication campaign” to assist borrowers, but did not provide any information about what, if any, steps the administration is taking to ensure the student loan system will meet borrowers’ needs and fulfill their statutory and contractual rights. In response, Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) Executive Director Mike Pierce released the following statement: “For 5 million people in default, federal law gives borrowers a way out of default and the right to make loan payments they can afford. Since February, Donald Trump and Linda McMahon have blocked these borrowers’ path out of default and are now feeding them into the maw of the government debt collection machine. This is cruel, unnecessary, and will further fan the flames of economic chaos for working families across this country.”

Read the Full Statement