A Growing Crisis: Student Loan Delinquency Surges After Pandemic Pause

After a five-year pandemic-related pause in federal student loan repayment and a temporary grace period, the student debt crisis has returned—arguably more severe than ever. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Quarterly Report on Household Debt and Credit, nearly six million student loan borrowers—or 13.7 percent—are now seriously delinquent or in default on their loans. Even more troubling, nearly one in four borrowers required to make payments are behind, a figure masked by millions of others who remain in deferment, forbearance, or income-driven repayment plans requiring no immediate payment.

This dramatic increase in delinquency stems from the expiration of the federal "on-ramp" policy in October 2024, which had temporarily shielded missed payments from credit reporting after the repayment pause ended in September 2023. Now that reporting has resumed, the financial and personal consequences for borrowers are quickly becoming evident.

---

Delinquency by the Numbers

The NY Fed’s report reveals that while the total number of student loan borrowers has slightly decreased since 2020—from 44.6 million to 43.7 million—the number of borrowers behind on their payments is nearly the same. More striking is the conditional borrower delinquency rate—which excludes those without a current payment due. Among borrowers required to pay, 23.7 percent are delinquent, a reflection of a deepening affordability crisis and repayment system that continues to fail millions.

The burden is not equally distributed across the country. The highest rates of delinquency are concentrated in the South, with Mississippi leading at 44.6 percent, followed by Alabama, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana—all states where more than 30 percent of borrowers with payments due are behind. In contrast, states like Illinois, Massachusetts, and Connecticut have delinquency rates under 15 percent.

---

An Aging, Struggling Borrower Base

Another notable shift is the aging of the delinquent borrower population. Delinquency is no longer confined to young graduates just entering repayment. Borrowers over age 40 now make up a significant portion of those falling behind, with more than one in four of these borrowers delinquent. The average age of a delinquent borrower rose from 38.6 in 2020 to 40.4 in 2025.

This is consistent with what higher education watchdogs have long observed: student loan debt is no longer just a young adult issue. Millions of older Americans—many of them parents who borrowed for their children or who returned to school later in life—are now in financial jeopardy.

---

Credit Damage and Economic Consequences

The return of delinquency has immediate and potentially devastating impacts on borrowers’ credit health. Over 2.2 million borrowers saw their credit scores drop by more than 100 points in the first quarter of 2025. Over one million borrowers suffered drops of 150 points or more.

Of those who became newly delinquent, nearly 44 percent had credit scores above 620 before missing payments—scores that typically qualify for auto loans, mortgages, and credit cards. These borrowers now face steeply increased borrowing costs or total exclusion from credit markets, potentially compromising their ability to secure housing, transportation, and even employment in some cases.

The cascading effects of damaged credit and rising debt may not be limited to student loans. The NY Fed warns that it remains to be seen whether delinquencies will spill over into defaults in other types of debt. This is especially concerning in a macroeconomic environment marked by high interest rates and increasing cost-of-living pressures.

---

Punitive Collections Resume

Adding to the pressure, federal collections have resumed. The U.S. Department of Education, working with the U.S. Treasury, began collecting on defaulted loans in May 2025, including garnishing wages, tax refunds, and Social Security payments. These harsh penalties, halted during the pandemic, are now back in full force—often hitting borrowers already in financial distress.

Millions of borrowers who once benefited from temporary protections now face permanent financial consequences, not only through collection actions but also through long-term credit damage.

---

A System Under Strain

The resurgence in student loan delinquency reflects not only the impact of resumed repayment but deeper systemic flaws in the American higher education and student loan systems. Despite well-publicized attempts at cancellation and reform, tens of millions remain trapped in a system that is neither affordable nor forgiving.

While much political attention has been directed toward one-time cancellation efforts and income-driven repayment plans, the growing delinquency rates suggest those efforts have not gone far enough—or fast enough. Borrowers in states with the highest delinquency rates tend to have lower incomes and fewer resources to navigate complex federal repayment options.

Without bold and comprehensive reform—including principal reduction, easier access to cancellation, and a robust safety net for vulnerable borrowers—millions of Americans will continue to suffer the consequences of educational debt they were told was an investment in their future.

---

The Higher Education Inquirer’s View

We see this resurgence in delinquency not simply as a data point, but as a clear warning. The Biden administration’s incremental reforms and the Supreme Court’s rebuke of broader cancellation efforts have left the most financially vulnerable exposed.

As wage garnishment resumes and credit scores plummet, student loan debt is quickly becoming a national emergency—especially for Black borrowers, older Americans, and those in the South and Midwest. These are not isolated failures. They are structural, policy-driven failures—decades in the making.

For the U.S. to truly address its student loan crisis, it must go beyond payment pauses and cosmetic fixes. It must confront the predatory aspects of its higher education financing system, the ballooning cost of college, and the promise that higher education is a guaranteed path to prosperity.

Until then, expect these numbers—and the pain behind them—to grow.

---

Sources:

• Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Quarterly Report on Household Debt and Credit, Q1 2025

• New York Fed Center for Microeconomic Data Blog

• Equifax Consumer Credit Panel data

The (A)Moral Reasoning Behind Clayton Christensen’s Disruptive Innovation

Clayton Christensen’s theory of Disruptive Innovation—hailed by Silicon Valley executives and higher education reformers alike—presents itself as a neutral, even benevolent, framework for understanding technological and organizational change. Yet beneath its managerial gloss lies a lineage and logic deeply rooted in an (a)moral worldview: one that tolerates, if not encourages, alienation, economic insecurity, and the erosion of labor rights in the name of efficiency and market “progress.”

To understand the true implications of Disruptive Innovation, we must situate Christensen’s ideas within a broader intellectual history—one that includes Joseph Schumpeter, Frederick Winslow Taylor, and Herbert Spencer, each of whom advanced theories that exalted economic upheaval while devaluing human costs.

The Schumpeterian Origins of Creative Destruction

Christensen openly acknowledged his debt to Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter, who coined the term “creative destruction” to describe the perpetual churn of capitalism—where new industries annihilate the old. Schumpeter viewed this cycle as the engine of economic development, but also one driven by elites: entrepreneurs and innovators were the “heroes” of economic evolution, regardless of the collateral damage.

Christensen adapted this logic but rebranded it in less violent terms. "Disruption" became the friendlier cousin of "destruction," but the underlying mechanism remained the same. When cheaper, simpler products or services overtake established incumbents, it is not just businesses that are disrupted, but the workers, communities, and public institutions tied to them. In higher education, this has meant the unbundling of the university, the rise of for-profits and MOOCs, and a managerial push for scalability over scholarship.

Taylorism and the Machinery of Efficiency

The ghost of Frederick Taylor—father of scientific management—also haunts Christensen’s framework. Taylor’s approach sought to maximize efficiency by breaking down labor into measurable units, stripping workers of autonomy and judgment in favor of systematized control. In Christensen’s world, similarly, incumbents are cast as bloated and inefficient, weighed down by tradition, professional norms, and tenured faculty. Disruptors are lean, data-driven, and contemptuous of established hierarchies.

This emphasis on efficiency over humanistic or moral values creates environments where workers (and students) are seen as inputs in a system, not stakeholders with rights or aspirations. The human costs—underemployment, job precarity, and burnout—are either ignored or reframed as necessary steps toward a more “innovative” future.

Herbert Spencer and the Moral Neutrality of the Market

Christensen’s theory also carries echoes of Herbert Spencer, the 19th-century social theorist who popularized “survival of the fittest” as a way to naturalize social hierarchies under capitalism. Like Spencer, Christensen’s logic treats market competition as a force of nature rather than a human construct. Incumbents fail not because of policy failures or exploitation, but because they were not “fit” to survive disruption.

This Darwinian moral neutrality veils itself in the language of progress, but its effects are often regressive. When applied to higher education, it suggests that if small colleges close, if adjuncts replace professors, if students are reduced to customers—it is not a crisis, but evolution. But evolution, in this framework, comes without ethics, without responsibility, and without mourning for what is lost.

Alienation, Anxiety, and the Crisis of Meaning

The consequences of this ideology are not confined to spreadsheets. They are lived out in alienation, anxiety, and a rising sense of meaninglessness in work and study alike. The relentless focus on disruption undermines stable institutions and communal knowledge, replacing them with temporary gigs and modular credentials. As careers give way to “side hustles” and degrees to “certificates,” students and workers alike are left unmoored.

This moral void is not an accident—it is intrinsic to the theory itself. Disruption is not guided by any vision of the good life, democratic values, or collective well-being. Its only metric is market success. It cannot ask whether the loss of a liberal arts college matters, whether an AI tool improves learning, or whether a precarious worker has a future. It can only ask: is it cheaper? Is it scalable?

Suicide and the Human Toll

In extreme cases, this sense of disposability has life-and-death consequences. Research across sectors shows that economic insecurity and job loss are linked to higher rates of suicide, depression, and addiction. The suicides of Uber drivers, the despair of indebted students, and the mental health crisis on campuses are not anomalies—they are the psychological toll of a system that celebrates disruption but discards the disrupted.

Labor Rights in the Age of Disruption

Against this backdrop, the weakening of labor rights is not just a policy issue—it is a direct consequence of the ideology of disruption. Tenure, unions, benefits, job security—these are seen as “barriers” to innovation. The ideal disruptor has no interest in negotiating with labor; it seeks flexibility, not fairness.

In higher education, this has meant an explosion of adjunct labor, the outsourcing of student services, and the dismantling of shared governance. Disruptive Innovation thus functions not merely as a theory, but as a strategy to sideline labor, redefine value, and transfer risk from institutions to individuals.

Toward a Moral Reckoning

It is time to reckon with the (a)moral underpinnings of Christensen’s Disruptive Innovation. Behind its sleek presentation lies a worldview that rationalizes destruction, devalues dignity, and denies responsibility. Its philosophical lineage—from Schumpeter to Spencer—offers little comfort to those displaced, demoralized, or disappeared in its wake.

If higher education is to survive with its soul intact, it must reject the idea that all disruption is good, that all efficiency is progress, and that human costs are externalities. It must ask not just what works, but for whom—and at what cost.

Having trouble keeping up with the chaos of the student loan system? (Student Borrower Protection Center)

 

Are you having trouble keeping up with the chaos of the student loan system? Don’t worry; we got you. There’s a lot going on right now and we’re here to break it all down. Here are some of the most pressing things that happened this week. On Tuesday, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), the Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee and senior member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee chaired an education forum to spotlight the Trump Administration’s radical effort to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Tasha Berkhalter, a U.S. Army veteran and student loan borrower who had her debt discharged by the Biden Administration after being defrauded by a predatory for-profit college, gave powerful testimony at the hearing.

Watch Tasha’s testimony here:

The Trump Administration announced a couple of weeks ago that it would begin collections on student loans for the first time in five years, beginning this Monday, May 5. ED started sending borrowers emails this week to let them know that the Treasury Offset Program—which lets them take tax refunds and federal benefits like Social Security—was starting. ED said administrative wage garnishment is expected to resume later in the summer. There are currently 5.5 million federal student loan borrowers in default who should be receiving this email, and another 8 million delinquent folks who could face these consequences later this summer. If you are currently in default and unsure of what to do, check out this great resource from the National Consumer Law Center. Our Deputy Executive Director Persis Yu was featured on both PBS News Hour and CBS Mornings this week to explain what is happening.  Watch Persis on PBS here:   On Monday, we submitted a comment letter to oppose the Trump Administration's efforts to implement its Project 2025 agenda through a process called negotiated rulemaking (Neg Reg). The Trump Administration is threatening a massive overhaul of the student loan safety net, including the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program and affordable repayment options. 184 organizations joined SBPC and Democracy Forward in signing on to the letter. These organizations will keep fighting on behalf of borrowers!

ICYMI, here is a roundup of other coverage this week: SBPC Executive Director Mike Pierce broke down the restart of collections on defaulted borrowers with Danielle Douglas-Gabriel of The Washington Post on NPR's 1A. He also spoke with KCAL News, The Associated Press, Investigate TV, and more! SBPC Counsel Khandice Lofton spoke on CBS News about the struggles of borrowers right now. SBPC Policy Director Aissa Canchola Bañez discussed on NPR’s Morning Edition how collections will, in particular, harm older borrowers. She also spoke with LAist about PSLF and The Hill about the House Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill, and answered borrowers' questions on ABC7. SBPC Legal Director Winston Berkman-Breen was featured in The New York Times commenting on the chaos borrowers are facing right now. He also spoke with Gray Media about this.

Hang in there, Amy Czulada Outreach & Advocacy Manager Student Borrower Protection Center

Rutger Bregman - “Moral Ambition” (The Daily Show)

Historian and best-selling author Rutger Bregman joins Jon Stewart to unpack his latest book, “Moral Ambition,” which is a call to action for people, especially those with education and privilege, to devote their talent and resources to careers and causes that make the world a better place. He describes how the political left has often made the mistake of placing moral purity above political relevance, and what they can learn from conservatives about building small movements into a larger, results-oriented coalition. Bregman also addresses the problem of what he calls our “inverse welfare society,” in which most high-paying, high-status jobs are inessential, and how his organization, The School for Moral Ambition, aims to reverse that structure by helping people quit their corporate jobs and transition into careers of positive impact.

 

Clashes at Columbia: Pro-Palestinian Protesters Arrested in Butler Library Standoff

On the evening of May 7, 2025, the ongoing student protest movement at Columbia University reached a new flashpoint, as dozens of pro-Palestinian demonstrators occupied Butler Library, prompting the university to summon the New York Police Department. According to multiple reports, approximately 76 individuals were removed in handcuffs after a tense standoff, raising fresh concerns about civil liberties, campus governance, and escalating political pressure from the federal government.

The occupation, which unfolded during Columbia’s reading week, was part of a wave of student-led actions protesting Israel's military campaign in Gaza and what activists call institutional complicity through academic and financial ties. Video footage and eyewitness accounts show masked individuals entering Butler Library, hanging banners, and clashing with public safety officers. One banner reportedly displayed a map of Israel with the words “There is only one state,” a message critics argue denies Israel’s right to exist.

While Columbia officials have condemned the action as disruptive and dangerous, the heavy-handed response—and the invocation of police force on an Ivy League campus—has reignited longstanding debates about academic freedom, student dissent, and the criminalization of protest.

“We had no choice but to ask for the assistance of the NYPD,” said Acting President Claire Shipman in a video statement. “These actions... posed a serious risk to our students and campus safety.”

Shipman reported that two public safety officers were injured as demonstrators surged through the building, and one individual was later removed by stretcher. In a post-incident response, the university implemented tighter access controls, requiring ID checks at campus entrances and suspending alumni and guest access.

Meanwhile, city and state officials swiftly voiced their support for the crackdown. Mayor Eric Adams stated that lawlessness would not be tolerated and urged non-students to leave the campus. Governor Kathy Hochul echoed that sentiment, praising law enforcement for “keeping students safe.” Senator Marco Rubio went further, announcing a federal review of the visa status of any non-citizen participants.

But from the protestors’ perspective, the events told a different story. A message posted by students inside the library alleged that public safety officers “choked and beaten us,” and that protestors were refusing to show IDs or leave under “militarized arrest.” The group rejected characterizations of violence and said they were exercising their rights to peaceful protest.

The administration’s response is occurring under heightened scrutiny from the Trump administration, which has threatened to withhold federal funding from universities perceived as allowing “antisemitic or anti-American” protests. Columbia, once seen as a stronghold of progressive activism, has become a political battleground in the broader culture war over speech, protest, and Zionism.

A controversial university guideline—announced earlier this year under pressure from the Trump White House—requires masked protestors to present identification upon request. Civil liberties groups argue the rule infringes on students’ rights and makes peaceful protest vulnerable to legal and administrative reprisal.

As students prepare for final exams, Columbia remains a campus under siege—caught between its own history of student activism and an increasingly authoritarian political climate. What happened inside Butler Library was more than a student protest gone awry; it was the collision of global politics, domestic surveillance, and higher education’s complicity in both.

What’s next for the Columbia protest movement remains uncertain, but the crackdown at Butler is unlikely to be its final chapter. Rather, it may serve as a blueprint—either for suppression or resistance—for how universities across the country respond to the growing tension between conscience and compliance.

The Cruelty of Compliance: How the Trump Administration’s FSA Notice Doubles Down on Student Debtors While Privileging the Higher Education Racket

The U.S. Department of Education, under the renewed influence of the Trump Administration and its deep-pocketed friends in the for-profit and debt collection industries, has issued a chilling reminder of just how little it cares for the tens of millions of Americans drowning in student debt. Cloaked in bureaucratic language and peppered with sanctimonious calls for “shared responsibility,” the Department’s latest notice is, in truth, a battle cry in its war to privatize higher education, scapegoat the vulnerable, and enrich corporate cronies at the expense of working families.

Let’s call this what it is: a renewed assault on the student debtor class—the adjunct professors, the first-generation college students, the single mothers, the underemployed graduates who were sold a dream of economic mobility and handed a lifetime of debt servitude.

According to the Department, only 38% of borrowers are current on their loans, and nearly a quarter of all loans are in default or severe delinquency. Rather than treating this figure as evidence of systemic failure—ballooning tuition, predatory lending, lack of loan forgiveness—the Department responds by resuming draconian collection measures like the Treasury Offset Program and Administrative Wage Garnishment. This means that the government will begin seizing tax refunds and garnishing wages of those already pushed to the economic brink.

Worse, the Department has the audacity to wrap this cruelty in the rhetoric of “support” and “outreach.” Borrowers are told that they’ll be reminded of their “repayment obligations” as if they have simply forgotten—not that they’ve been buried under compound interest, stagnating wages, and fraudulent institutions that peddled worthless degrees. The supposed “enhancements” to income-driven repayment plans are little more than PR spin, insufficient to address the tidal wave of suffering inflicted by a broken system.

Then comes the most insulting part: the Department deflects blame onto institutions while simultaneously pressuring them to track down and guilt-trip former students. Colleges are urged to contact former enrollees and remind them they’re obligated to pay. Why? Not out of concern for their welfare—but because high cohort default rates (CDRs) might threaten those institutions' eligibility for federal aid money.

So we see the real game here: this isn’t about protecting students. It’s about protecting the federal loan program as a revenue engine and shielding the reputations of colleges—especially the for-profit diploma mills that flourished under prior Republican administrations. These institutions can continue hiking tuition and churning out underprepared graduates because the government, under Trump and his Department of Education appointees, would rather collect on unpayable loans than hold schools accountable.

Even more dystopian is the Department’s plan to publicly release “loan non-payment rates by institution.” While transparency sounds virtuous, this move will undoubtedly be weaponized—not to shut down abusive schools but to further stigmatize borrowers, especially those from marginalized backgrounds who attended underfunded schools with few resources.

Nowhere in this document is there any meaningful discussion of debt relief, student protections, or reining in college costs. Nowhere is there a reckoning with the fact that federal student aid has been transformed from a tool of opportunity into a tool of coercion. Instead, the Trump Administration signals it is open for business—the business of extracting wealth from the poor and funneling it into the private sector.

This notice is more than a policy update. It is a declaration of values. And those values are clear: Profit over people. Compliance over compassion. Privatization over public good.

The Higher Education Inquirer stands with the debtors. We see through the lies of “fiscal responsibility” and “integrity.” And we will continue to expose every cynical maneuver designed to crush the educated underclass in the name of neoliberal orthodoxy.

To student borrowers: You are not alone. You are not a failure. You are a victim of a system that was never built to serve you.

Here's the actual post from the US Department of Education, Federal Student Aid, dated May 5, 2025:

 

The United States faces critical challenges related to the federal student loan programs. According to estimates from the U.S. Department of Education (Department), only 38% of Direct Loan and Department-held Federal Family Education Loan Program borrowers are in repayment and current on their student loans. We also estimate that almost 25% of the entire portfolio is either in default or a late stage of delinquency. 

Given these challenges, the Department is taking immediate steps to engage student borrowers and support the repayment of their federal student loans. As announced in an April 21, 2025, press release, today, the Department will resume collections on its defaulted federal student loan portfolio with the restart the Treasury Offset Program and, later this summer, Administrative Wage Garnishment. The Department has also initiated an outreach campaign to remind all borrowers of their repayment obligations and provide resources and support to assist them in selecting the best repayment plan for their circumstances. The Department has also launched an enhanced income-driven repayment (IDR) plan process, simplifying how borrowers enroll in IDR plans and eliminating the need for many borrowers to manually recertify their income each year. 

Role of Institutions in Loan Repayment

Maintaining the integrity of the Title IV, Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) loan programs has always been a shared responsibility among student borrowers, the Department, and participating institutions. Although borrowers have the primary responsibility for repaying their student loans, institutions play a key role in the Department’s ongoing efforts to improve loan repayment outcomes, especially as the cost of college set solely by institutions has continued to skyrocket. Institutions are responsible for providing clear and accurate information about repayment to borrowers through entrance and exit counseling, and colleges and universities are responsible for disclosing annual tuition and fees and the net price to students and their families on the costs of a postsecondary education. The financial aid community has demonstrated its commitment to providing direct advice and counsel to students regarding their borrowing, but institutions must refocus and expand these efforts as pandemic flexibilities come to an end.

Under section 435 of the HEA, institutions are required to keep their cohort default rates (CDR) low and will lose eligibility for federal student assistance, including Pell Grants and federal student loans, if their CDR exceeds 40% for a single year or 30% for three consecutive years. The Department reminds institutions that the repayment pause on student loans ended in October 2023, and CDRs published in 2026 will include borrowers who entered repayment in 2023 and defaulted in 2023, 2024, or 2025. The Department further reminds institutions that those borrowers whose delinquency or default status was reset in September 2024 could enter technical default status / be delinquent on their loans for more than 270 days beginning in June and default this summer. As such, we strongly urge all institutions to begin proactive and sustained outreach to former students who are delinquent or in default on their loans to ensure that such institutions will not face high CDRs next year and lose access to federal student aid. 

Outreach to Former Students to Prevent Defaults

Given the urgent need to ensure that more student borrowers enter repayment and stay current on their loans, the Secretary urges each participating institution to provide the following information to all borrowers who ceased to be enrolled at the institution since January 1, 2020, and for whom they have contact information: 

• Remind the borrower that he or she is obligated to repay any federal student loans that have not been repaid and are not in deferment or forbearance;

• Suggest that the borrower review information on StudentAid.gov about repayment options; and 

• Request that the borrower log into StudentAid.gov using their StudentAid.gov username and password to update their profile with current contact information and ensure that their loans are in good standing. 

The Department urges that this outreach be performed no later than June 30, 2025. We do not stipulate how institutions reach out to borrowers, nor the specific information provided, as long as it covers the three categories described above. 

We also encourage institutions to focus their initial outreach on students who are delinquent on one or more of their loans in order to prevent defaults. We will provide additional information in the future to assist schools with identifying and communicating with these borrowers.

Publishing Loan Non-Payment Rates by Institution

The Department is committed to overseeing the federal student loan programs with fairness and integrity for students, institutions, and taxpayers. To that end, the Department believes that greater transparency is needed regarding institutional success in counseling borrowers and helping them get into good standing on their loans. 

The Department maintains data on the repayment status of federal student loan borrowers and in the past has provided information in the College Scorecard about the status of each institution’s borrowers at several intervals after they enter repayment. The Department plans to use this data to calculate rates of nonpayment by institution and will publish this information on the Federal Student Aid Data Center later this month. The Department will provide more information about this publication process soon. 

Thank you for your continued efforts to maintain the integrity of the Title IV, HEA loan programs. The Department values its institutional partners and looks forward to continued collaboration to place borrowers on the path to sustainable repayment of their loans.

Columbia student Mohsen Mahdawi says "justice will prevail" after ICE release (CBS Mornings)

Columbia University student Mohsen Mahdawi spoke with CBS News in his first TV interview since his release from ICE custody. He spent 16 days in detention and now awaits deportation hearings for protesting the war in Gaza.
 

Santa Ono: Take the Money and Run

In a stunning development that has sent ripples through the world of higher education, University of Michigan President Santa J. Ono announced he will step down this summer to take the helm at the University of Florida. The announcement comes just seven months after he signed a lucrative contract extension at U-M—one that brought his salary to $1.3 million per year and was among the most generous in the nation.

Ono’s exit will mark the shortest presidential tenure in University of Michigan history—just two and a half years. And it’s happening at a moment of profound political and institutional tension, with many in Ann Arbor voicing frustration at what they perceive as the university's muted resistance to a suite of controversial measures emanating from the Trump administration.

From Rising Star to Abrupt Exit

When Santa Ono arrived in Ann Arbor in late 2022, he brought with him a sterling academic pedigree and a reputation as a charismatic, student-focused leader. His hiring was seen as a stabilizing move after years of controversy surrounding his predecessor.

But beneath the surface, Ono’s relationship with the university community frayed. Faculty members and students alike cite his increasing absence from public discourse in 2024, particularly as the federal government—under a resurgent Trump administration—moved to slash research funding, roll back diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, and scrutinize university partnerships, including U-M’s involvement with The PhD Project, which aims to diversify business faculty.

“He’s been more or less invisible particularly this year,” said Faculty Senate Chair Derek Peterson. “What we need is a fighter, not a conformer.”

The Florida Move

Ono’s move to the University of Florida has sparked speculation about his motivations. On paper, Michigan is more prestigious, enjoys greater autonomy thanks to a unique governance structure, and has a massive $19.2 billion endowment. Florida, by contrast, is under the thumb of a politically active governor and a centralized board that has exerted pressure on universities to conform to ideological mandates.

Yet the financial allure may have been too great to ignore: reports suggest Florida’s presidential compensation could total $3 million annually—more than double Ono’s current pay.

Brendan Cantwell, a professor of higher education policy at Michigan State University, noted the irony: “He’s leaving a more prestigious, more autonomous institution. That says a lot about the pressures he faced.”

A State Under Fire: The Regressive Politics of Higher Education in Florida

For those familiar with the political climate in Florida, Ono’s move to the University of Florida is far from surprising. Over the past few years, Florida has become a hotbed for right-wing political maneuvering in higher education, with Governor Ron DeSantis spearheading efforts to reshape universities in line with his conservative agenda.

From banning certain books to defunding DEI programs and trying to control academic curriculum, DeSantis has made it clear that higher education in Florida is now a battleground for ideological warfare. His administration has launched aggressive campaigns against what he describes as “woke” politics in academia, citing the need to root out “liberal indoctrination” and promote “freedom” from progressive influences.

Florida’s approach to higher education has included an unprecedented wave of budget cuts to diversity programs, particularly those aimed at supporting historically underrepresented students. The state’s universities are now grappling with the loss of funding for programs designed to increase access for Black, Latino, and Indigenous students. DeSantis has also pushed for "anti-woke" laws that bar universities from offering certain courses or diversity-related initiatives. This is not only affecting the curriculum, but also the very way in which faculty and staff are hired and evaluated.

In 2023, the University of Florida eliminated many of its DEI programs under pressure from the state. The state’s Board of Governors is now actively involved in scrutinizing university curriculums, and its influence extends even to hiring practices, where faculty members are increasingly expected to align with a more conservative view of American history and culture. These moves have drawn ire from academics nationwide, who argue that Florida’s political leadership is attempting to stifle intellectual freedom and academic independence.

Moreover, Florida’s universities face a severe erosion of academic freedom, as DeSantis has sought to impose strict guidelines on speech and research. This includes revising what can and cannot be taught in classrooms and restricting discussions around race, gender, and political identity. The state's newly imposed curriculum laws have made it more difficult for universities to engage in meaningful discourse about topics such as climate change, systemic racism, and gender equality.

For Ono, stepping into this highly charged, politicized environment will represent a dramatic shift from his more moderate, research-focused tenure at Michigan. His leadership will likely be tested not just by university-level challenges but also by the state's political apparatus, which has shown a willingness to intervene in nearly every facet of higher education.

Institutional Challenges Ahead

Ono’s departure leaves U-M with significant challenges. The Board of Regents announced that he will remain in Ann Arbor until an interim president is named—a process that may take weeks. But finding a long-term leader capable of navigating the rapidly shifting higher education landscape could take much longer.

The next president will have to address:

• Federal Research Cuts: The loss of federal contracts—particularly from agencies like the National Institutes of Health—has cost Michigan and its peer institutions hundreds of millions of dollars. A $15 million Social Security study was among the casualties. U-M is using endowment funds to plug gaps, but that is not a sustainable strategy.

• DEI Backlash and Retrenchment: The university recently shuttered two DEI offices and scaled back programming, citing political and legal risks. While Ono promised to bolster financial aid and mental health support, many faculty and students felt betrayed by the move.

• Campus Unrest and Free Speech: Protests over the Gaza war led to harsh disciplinary action against student groups, including the suspension of Students Allied for Freedom and Equality (SAFE). Critics say the campus has become increasingly authoritarian, and several lawsuits have been filed by terminated employees alleging First Amendment violations.

• Board Relations and Governance: U-M’s elected Board of Regents is ideologically divided. While five Democratic regents penned a passionate op-ed in defense of academic independence, the board’s stance on DEI and other political flashpoints appears fractured.

A Bigger Crisis in Public Higher Ed?

Beyond the immediate concerns, the university’s upheaval reflects deeper anxieties about the future of public higher education in America. Declining public trust, rising tuition, and the politicization of universities—especially around issues of race, gender, and free speech—have created an atmosphere of volatility.

While the University of Michigan continues to see strong application numbers, including from international students, enrollment of in-state high school graduates is dropping. The university’s Go Blue Guarantee, which offers free tuition to families earning under $125,000, is a step toward addressing affordability concerns. But will it be enough?

Sandy Baruah of the Detroit Regional Chamber sees a broader mission: “Our research universities all have a responsibility to make the case for higher education. The value of higher ed is critical to the state of Michigan.”

What’s Next?

The Faculty Senate has passed resolutions urging the university to join a “mutual defense pact” with other Big Ten schools to resist political interference and defend academic freedom. But U-M is not obligated to act on those resolutions.

Interim leadership will be announced soon, and the search for a permanent successor will follow. Whoever takes the reins next will need to be a deft political operator—someone capable of rebuilding trust internally while weathering mounting external threats.

In the words of Cantwell: “Whoever they hire has to be prepared to be under intense scrutiny—locally, federally, ideologically. The next leader of Michigan must have both a spine and a strategy.”

As the University of Michigan enters this uncertain chapter, one thing is clear: the battle over the soul of public higher education is far from over.

Trump’s War on Intellectualism Is a Threat to Democracy—But Elite Universities Aren’t Innocent Victims

When Donald Trump and his political allies go after elite universities like Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Pennsylvania, it’s easy—too easy—for defenders of higher education to circle the wagons. We’re told that these attacks are a threat to academic freedom, to knowledge, even to democracy itself.

There’s some truth to that. But let’s not romanticize the institutions being targeted. Elite universities are not innocent victims in America’s democratic unraveling. They have, for decades, cultivated privilege, preserved inequality, and insulated themselves from the real-world consequences of their decisions. If we’re going to talk honestly about the dangers of anti-intellectualism, we must also confront the failures of the so-called intellectual elite.

That said, the Trump movement’s war on expertise, critical thinking, and education isn't aimed at reforming these institutions—it’s about dismantling the very idea of an informed, questioning citizenry. And that’s where the true danger lies.

Elite Universities: Power Without Accountability

Let’s start with the obvious: the Ivy League and its peers are deeply complicit in America’s meritocratic mythology. They’ve served as finishing schools for the ruling class, minting the bankers, judges, presidents, and policymakers who have overseen widening inequality, endless wars, mass incarceration, and climate inaction.

These schools have protected legacy admissions, turned a blind eye to labor exploitation on their campuses, and sat on billion-dollar endowments while adjunct faculty and graduate workers scrape by. They have not been champions of democracy so much as guardians of a highly stratified status quo.

So when critics accuse them of elitism, they’re not entirely wrong. But the Trump-era populism that claims to speak for “the people” doesn’t aim to democratize education—it aims to destroy its democratic function altogether.

The Real Target: Critical Thought

The Trump Administration's true grievance isn’t with elite universities per se; it’s with what these institutions represent in the public imagination: facts, complexity, and the right to question power. This resentment manifests in everything from attacks on “woke” curricula to efforts to ban books and gut public education.

The Trumpist strategy is clear: discredit intellectual institutions not to make them more accountable, but to replace expertise with loyalty, and dialogue with propaganda. This isn’t about fixing higher education. It’s about gutting the tools people need to resist authoritarianism—tools like historical context, scientific reasoning, and moral imagination.

And while elite universities may have failed to democratize knowledge, they are still among the few places where critical inquiry is possible. For all their hypocrisy, they produce some of the research and dialogue that fuels social progress. That’s precisely why they’re under attack.

The Cost of Cynicism

It's tempting to dismiss the fight over academia as a clash between out-of-touch elites and performative populists. But this is bigger than a feud between two privileged factions. At stake is whether truth itself still matters in American political life.

Yes, universities need to be held accountable—for their exclusivity, for their economic entrenchment, for their detachment from working-class realities. But that critique must be grounded in a desire to expand and democratize knowledge, not to destroy it.

Trumpism offers no such vision. It’s not trying to fix a broken higher ed system; it’s trying to ensure fewer people can question the system at all.

A Choice for the Future

We shouldn’t fall into the trap of defending elite universities just because Trump attacks them. Nor should we accept the false populism that scapegoats education while consolidating power in the hands of the ignorant and the loyal.

The choice we face is not between Ivy League hypocrisy and Trumpian anti-intellectualism. It’s between a democracy that values critical thought and a movement that seeks to suppress it—between a flawed system that can be reformed and an ideology that rejects the very notion of reform.

If we care about democracy, we must critique our institutions honestly—and defend the democratic values they too often betray but must ultimately uphold.