We (still) can't be neutral.

The Higher Education Inquirer cannot be neutral, not in times like these. These times, 2025 and beyond, demand that working-class folks, including journalists, expose the truth as we perceive it, just as other media outlets present the truth through the lens of those in power: the neoliberal elites and the Trumpian elites. We cannot pretend we do not see the climate chaos ahead or the next man-made economic crisis. And we cannot believe we are as important or as courageous as the muckrakers of the 20th century, women and men like Ida B. Wells, Ida Tarbell, and Upton Sinclair. But we do hope we have made a difference, ever so slight.  We believe our readers can do the same. #NoKings

“Worse Than McCarthyism”: Historian Ellen Schrecker on Trump’s War Against Universities & Students (Democracy Now!)

 

The War on Thought: Higher Education and the Fight Against Authoritarianism (Henry Giroux)

According to the 2024 Democracy Index, approximately 45% of the world's population now resides in democracies, yet only 8% live in full democracies. The rise in authoritarian regimes is particularly alarming, with over 35% of the global population living under such systems. This backslide is attributed to factors such as authoritarian crackdowns, increasing political polarization, and geopolitical tensions. Regions like Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America have seen marked declines, while even historically stable democracies like the U.S. face concerns over institutional erosion and political divisiveness. The data calls for a reevaluation of global political trends, urging a commitment to reinforcing democratic principles in the face of rising authoritarianism and instability, a task made all the more challenging by far-right attacks on higher education in the U.S., Hungary, and India.

For those of us shaped in the revolutionary democratic spirit of the sixties, it is both painful and disheartening to witness the rise of fascism in the U.S. and the slow, tragic unraveling of democracy around the world. Decades of neoliberalism have relentlessly eroded higher education, with a few notable exceptions. The once-cherished notion that the university is a vital advocate for democracy and the public good now seems like a distant memory. What we face today is the collapse of education into mere training, an institution dominated by regressive instrumentalism, hedge-fund administrators, and the growing threat of transforming higher education into spaces of ideological conformity, pedagogical repression, and corporate servitude.

We have seen this before in other authoritarian regimes, where the outcome was the death not only of academic freedom but also of democracy itself.

In the face of the current attacks on higher education, especially in the U.S., it becomes more difficult for faculty to make thought matter, to encourage students to ask important questions, and to view thinking as a form of political engagement, to think the unthinkable in the service of justice and equality. Yet despite these overwhelming challenges, higher education remains one of the few remaining spaces where critical thought can still flourish, serving as a bulwark against authoritarianism. As scholars Heba Gowayed and Jessica Halliday Hardie have noted, despite the deep flaws of academic institutions, they remain vital spaces for critical thought and civic learning, making them prime targets for authoritarian attacks. They write:

While academic institutions are deeply flawed, they are also, in their ideal form, bastions for thought and pedagogy. They are where students can make mistakes and learn from one another. They are also crucial spaces of learning for the citizenry. This is why they are the longtime targets of rightwing attack.

As Hannah Arendt once said, “What really makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other kind of dictatorship to rule is that the people are not informed”. This lack of information and historical awareness is precisely what authoritarians seek to exploit. The need for intellectual autonomy and historical consciousness is paramount in resisting these threats. Arendt's work on the erosion of thinking under totalitarian regimes remains incredibly relevant. It was quite clear to her that a government that lies deprives people of their capacity to think, act, and judge. She writes: “If everyone always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but that no one believes anything at all anymore, and rightly so, because lies, by their very nature, have to be changed, to be ‘re-lied,’ so to speak”.

Under the Trump regime, we are witnessing the erosion of critical thought, a deliberate rewriting of history, and the paralyzing of intellectual autonomy, each a direct manifestation of authoritarian tactics. We live in an authoritarian society where the truth itself is under attack, along with the institutions that allow citizens to differentiate between truth and lies, thereby holding power accountable. This is more than an act of irrationality; it is a fundamental element of fascism.  This is a signpost for revealing the damaged passions and delusions of invincibility that characterize a culture’s descent  into authoritarianism and the crime of what Arendt called “the deprivation of citizenship.” The erosion of intellectual autonomy inevitably leads to a denial of citizenship, as Arendt warns. In the face of this, higher education, traditionally a site of critical engagement, is now under siege.

Higher education, traditionally a space for critical thinking and civic engagement, however limited, is now under a savage assault by the global far-right. International students face detentions and deportations without cause, and professors are silenced for speaking out against injustice. The state, right-wing mobs, and even university administrations perpetuate this attack on the university, a situation reminiscent of McCarthy-era repression, though more deeply embedded in the system.

The emerging fascism across the globe underscores the need to educate young people, and the wider public, on the importance of critical thinking. Understanding the threat of authoritarianism is more crucial than ever. Ethics matters, civic education matters, and the humanities matter, especially today. Political consciousness, a crucial element of democracy, must be nurtured, it does not emerge automatically. In a culture that devalues public education, silences dissent, and commodifies expression, many youth feel abandoned. They are hyper-visible as threats but invisible as citizens.

The horror of fascist violence is back, though it is now draped in AI-guided bombs, ethnic cleansing, and white supremacists basking in their project of racial cleansing while destroying every vestige of decency, human rights, and democracy. As global fascism rises, youth have taken center stage in the resistance, challenging forces that threaten both democracy and justice. This emerging youth-led movement, from Indigenous land defenders to climate activists and campus protesters, is pivotal in shaping the future.

Against the rise of fascism globally and its attack on any institution that supports critical thinking and a crucial form of pedagogical citizenship, youth are leading resistance movements around the world. From Indigenous land defenders to climate activists and campus protesters, young people are naming the violences shaping their lives and imagining alternatives. This demands a broad, interconnected movement to unite struggles against ecological destruction, systemic racism, economic inequality, and the transformation of democracy into an authoritarian state.

Education must be central to these efforts, not just formal schooling, but a deeper political and ethical education that links knowledge to action. Authoritarian regimes fear such education, which is why they attack libraries, ban books, and silence educators. They understand what is often forgotten: education is the foundation for both defending and enabling democracy.

This is not a time for despair, but for militant hope, rooted in resistance, collective care, and the belief that youth are not disposable but vital to a democratic future. They are not the problem; they are the possibility. In a time when universities face racist, anti-intellectual assaults from demagogues like Trump, Stephen Miller, and Kristi Noem, epitomized by the recent attack on Harvard, it is crucial for educators, students, administrators, and those who believe in democracy to rise against the authoritarian forces threatening the U.S. and emerging democracies alike. It is absolutely essential to stand against genocidal warmongers, ethnic cleansing, and state-sanctioned violence, at home and abroad. It is fundamental to fight for civic courage, social responsibility, and dignity, values that sustain a thriving democracy.

We must learn from history, to prevent Trump and his merry crew of authoritarians from turning higher education into laboratories of dehumanization and indoctrination. To the students delivering graduation speeches in the name of justice and freedom, such as Logan Rozos, and being punished by university administrators for speaking out, such courage stands as a model of hope. These brave students, along with the student protesters fighting for Palestinian freedom, make clear that education is a crucial bulwark against what the conservative Spanish think tank, Foro de Sevilla, has called the "dark paths of neo-Nazism," which are with us once again. What must be fought in the realm of culture and on the streets at all costs is the silence surrounding the thousands of children killed in Gaza, the erasure of historical memory, and the war on youth in our own land, exemplified by a GOP budget soaked in blood.

Fascism is more than a distant moment in history; it is a breathing threat and wound that has emerged in different forms once again. And the endpoint of such savagery is always the same, racial and ethnic hatred that ends with broken and bloodied bodies in the camps, detention centers, and mass graves.

Any viable call to resistance must stand in stark contrast to the hollow platitudes of right-wing figures, compromised politicians, and celebrities who serve the status quo. Their words and policies echo a complicit silence in the face of government corruption, student abductions, and tax cuts for the wealthy funded by the poor. This is gangster capitalism at its worst.

Hopefully, in such dark times, there will emerge a language of critique and hope, the power of collective struggle, and an education rooted in justice and empowerment. One that fuels a call to mass action, civic courage, and the relentless pursuit of democracy through unity and defiance. 

Liberty University’s Standing for Freedom Center and the Battle Lines of a New American Divide

As the United States continues to fracture along political and cultural lines, Liberty University’s Standing for Freedom Center (SFFC) is not just observing the divide—it is actively working to widen it. Positioned at the vanguard of Christian Nationalist thought, the SFFC promotes a vision of the nation where faith is law, politics is pulpit, and pluralism is cast as a spiritual threat.

In recent years, the center has ramped up rhetoric that casts the American culture war as a righteous struggle between biblical Christians and a “godless elite.” Nowhere is this more evident than in its escalating campaign against Planned Parenthood, which the center presents not just as a healthcare provider, but as the embodiment of neoliberal moral decay.

From Cultural Critique to Wartime Rhetoric

The SFFC has turned its media platforms into a moral war room, producing daily content that frames modern American politics in biblical terms—light versus darkness, good versus evil, Christians versus cultural Marxists. The center regularly targets institutions like public universities, Hollywood, and Washington bureaucracies as complicit in the erosion of Christian civilization.

A recent SFFC campaign, for example, lambasted Planned Parenthood with claims that it is not merely offering reproductive services, but “profiting from death.” Referencing the organization’s most recent annual report, the center emphasized that Planned Parenthood had performed over 402,000 abortions in a single year while pulling in more than $2 billion in revenue—a “record-breaking” number, according to the SFFC.

The Anti-Abortion Crusade as a Flashpoint

In SFFC messaging, this abortion data is used not just to critique Planned Parenthood, but to indict the American system as complicit in mass murder—what it describes as a “death movement” funded by taxpayers. The center argues that federal support for Planned Parenthood indirectly subsidizes abortion, even if laws technically prohibit direct funding for the procedure.

“This organization,” an SFFC statement reads, “which has long received hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars annually, can sustain itself without public funding. Yet it continues to benefit from the federal trough while expanding its abortion services.”

The center draws a direct connection between this funding and what it sees as a systemic betrayal of America’s moral core. By painting Planned Parenthood as both a “political and cultural powerhouse” and a “merchant of death,” the SFFC not only undermines trust in public institutions—it rallies students and followers to view America’s future as dependent on destroying these institutions altogether.

Indoctrination, Not Education

While most university-affiliated think tanks encourage debate and pluralism, the SFFC operates more like an ideological factory. Its leaders are unapologetic in their intent to raise up a generation of “culture warriors” who will go into politics, media, and ministry with a mandate to reshape society in a narrowly defined Christian image.

The anti-abortion campaign is also used to collect data and recruit young activists. On the SFFC website, readers are invited to respond to a poll:

Do you think young people are becoming more conservative?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
Email Address: ___________

A disclaimer informs users that “completing this poll entitles you to receive communications from Liberty University free of charge,” and that by participating, they agree to receive ongoing messaging rooted in the SFFC’s worldview.

Christian Nationalism and the Call for a Parallel America

By centering its messaging on abortion, gender identity, religious liberty, and “globalist control,” the SFFC is laying the ideological groundwork for a future in which two Americas coexist uneasily—or collide outright. One America, in this vision, is neoliberal and secular, ruled by technocrats and activists. The other is God-ordained, led by a “remnant” of faithful patriots.

This worldview leaves no room for compromise. It promotes defunding Planned Parenthood not as a policy choice, but as a moral imperative—a “necessary step toward reclaiming the soul of our nation.” Any opposition to this vision is treated as treasonous, immoral, and aligned with “demonic forces.”

The University’s Role in Civil Conflict

In past decades, higher education was viewed as a site for civic formation and critical thinking. But with institutions like Liberty University turning their academic platforms into partisan strongholds, the American university system is becoming a battlefield.

The Standing for Freedom Center is not merely part of the conversation—it is actively inciting a form of civil conflict. Its campaigns seek to delegitimize not just opposing arguments, but entire political structures. And in doing so, they push the country closer to a clash not just of ideas, but of identities.

Conclusion: Toward a Theology of Division

By promoting a view of the United States as a nation under siege by secular forces, the SFFC turns policy debates into spiritual warfare. Whether on abortion, education, or civil rights, every issue is recast as a battle for the soul of the country.

This theology of division, dressed in the language of liberty and moral clarity, may resonate with young evangelicals who feel alienated from mainstream culture. But its long-term effect may be the erosion of the shared civic space that makes pluralistic democracy possible.

As the 2026 election cycle accelerates, and as institutions continue to splinter, the question is no longer whether Liberty University is shaping the culture war—it’s how much longer the country can avoid the kind of civil fracture the Standing for Freedom Center seems eager to see fulfilled.

---

Do you have information about educational and religious institutions shaping political conflict? Contact the Higher Education Inquirer confidentially at gmcghee@aya.yale.edu.

Scott Pelley BASHES Trump Admin During Wake Forest Commencement (The Hill)

 

U.S. Visa Suspensions Under Trump Administration Derail Dreams of Ecuadorian Students (Primicias)

In a sharp blow to international academic mobility, the Trump administration has suspended student visa interviews across U.S. embassies and consulates, leaving thousands of foreign students—including many from Ecuador—in limbo. The policy, though not enshrined in law, is already having profound effects on individuals and institutions alike.

For students like Valeria, a 23-year-old from Quito, the consequences are deeply personal. After receiving her acceptance letter from a university in Pennsylvania and paying her tuition, Valeria now finds herself unsure whether she can even enter the country. “I called the consulate, contacted five immigration attorneys—even my university doesn’t know what’s going on,” she told Primicias. “Nobody can tell me if I’ll be allowed in or deported.”

Valeria’s uncertainty stems from an executive directive that halts interviews for F-1 (academic), M-1 (vocational), and J-1 (exchange visitor) visas—crucial legal pathways for hundreds of thousands of international students entering the U.S. annually. Though the suspension is being framed as temporary, it has already disrupted the educational futures of prospective students worldwide, including many from Latin America.

“This is not a symbolic gesture,” warned U.S.-based immigration consultant Pablo Acosta. “It’s an executive decision with immediate and real-life consequences.”

A Chilling Effect on International Education

International students are more than just a demographic. According to the Institute of International Education (IIE), over one million international students were enrolled in U.S. higher education institutions during the 2022–2023 academic year. They represented about 5.6% of the total U.S. college student population and contributed more than $38 billion to the American economy, according to data from NAFSA: Association of International Educators.

Each institution, on average, hosts about 400 international students, although figures vary significantly depending on size and global ranking. This flow of students not only brings financial support but enriches academic life and sustains graduate programs in STEM, business, and other high-demand fields.

The suspension of visa interviews threatens to destabilize this ecosystem.

Looking Elsewhere: Canada and Europe

The Trump administration’s restrictive stance is driving many Ecuadorian students to look north to Canada or across the Atlantic to Europe. José Villamar, a student from Guayaquil who had planned to study environmental engineering in Texas, described how the suspension has frozen his plans. “Without the visa interview, the university can’t issue my I-20. Everything is on hold.”

Visa advisors are now encouraging students to consider alternatives. “The advantage of Canada is its consistency,” explained Norman Ordóñez, a visa consultant in Ecuador. “You can study, work, and eventually apply for residency. The U.S. is putting that dream on hold. Meanwhile, countries like Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands are becoming more attractive due to their transparent pathways and financial aid programs.”

Collateral Damage: U.S. Higher Ed and the Global Reputation

While the Trump administration frames its policy as a national security and immigration control measure, it risks damaging the global reputation of U.S. higher education. Inconsistency, unpredictability, and politicization of visa policy undermine institutional planning and student confidence.

In interviews with Primicias, affected students expressed despair over losing control of their futures for reasons far beyond their efforts. “The hardest part isn’t changing countries,” said Valeria. “It’s giving up on a dream for reasons that have nothing to do with your hard work.”

The Higher Education Inquirer sees this as part of a broader pattern of hostility toward international engagement within U.S. academia, especially under right-wing populist regimes. The long-term consequences could include a decline in enrollment, brain drain, and weakened international partnerships.

As global education becomes more competitive, the United States may find that once-burned students and institutions don’t easily return.

---

For more on this developing story and others impacting international education, student rights, and global equity in higher education, follow The Higher Education Inquirer. 

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

During the weekend of May 16-19, 2025, the San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center – IndyBay which operates as open platform news source against injustice, scrubbed two years of news articles ranging from May 2023 – May 2025.

The focus of these articles was corruption, fraud and scandal in the Los Angeles Community College District, primarily at Los Angeles Valley College’s Media Arts Department.

A few of these articles summarized.

Erika Endrijonas faces new questions in LACCD fraud | May 2, 2023 |

Pasadena City College President-Superintendent Erika Endrijonas being fired from the institution and trying to get a job at Santa Barbara City College, Mt. SAC, and Los Angeles City College. Endrijonas had been subjected to a vote of no confidence by the Pasadena Academic Senate, Pasadena Full-Time Faculty Union, protests by Part-Time Faculty, and finally the vote to reduce her contract by the newly elected board of trustees.

The article dived into Endrijonas’s tenure at her previous institution – Los Angeles Valley College. Endrijonas was announced in her new role at PCC in December 2018, the same week that a jury in Van Nuys awarded a former LAVC employee $2.9 million jury award for illegal retaliation and abuse. A few months earlier, the Los Angeles Times published a major story about the Valley Academic and Cultural Center – a project meant to be Endrijonas’s crowning achievement – being an alleged massive racketeering scheme.

Further it documented the Media Arts Department the VACC would house had a lengthy history of lawsuits and accreditation complaints against the faculty for not providing the education and training advertised – negating the need for the new building. The building’s approval vote happened in August 2016, the lawsuit happened in 2009, and the Accreditation Complaints happened in June 2016.

Dozen LAVC Cinema Students Narratives challenge Erika Endrijonas’s LACCD Success Story | May 5, 2023 |

This article covered a release of an email thread from a dozen students in 2016 that was ultimately sent to the Accreditation Commission for Junior and Community Colleges in 2016, substantiating that there was widespread fraud in the department. Classes were not scheduled by Department Chair Eric Swelstad, training was not provided, labs were not held, etc . . .

Van Nuys/Los Angeles College Screenwriting Professor Faked Writer’s Guild Membership | May 17, 2023 |

Revealed that LAVC Media Arts Department Chair Eric Swelstad faked his membership in the Writer’s Guild of America – West, and then used it in multiple professional bios.

Los Angeles Valley College perpetuated wage theft against students on Julie Su’s watch | May 19, 2023 |

Documented how Grant Director Dan Watanabe engaged in wage theft against students for two years from 2013 – 2016.

Two Los Angeles Film Professors Bilked Taxpayers Over $3.5 Million Dollars | May 21, 2023 |

Described how LAVC Media Arts Department Founder Joseph Dacursso’s retirement first as Department Chair, then as a full-time faculty in 2012, left Department Chair Eric Swelstad and Arantxa Rodriguez to engage in petty infighting and squabbling that spilled over into scheduling decisions. In short, two faculty members collected six-figure-salaries while putting students in the middle of department in-fighting.

LAVC Omsbudsman Stalked Whistleblowers | August 8, 2023 |

Described how LAVC’s Dean of Students, Annie G. Reed (Goldman) retaliated and stalked students that went to Accreditation, going as far as running a smear campaign that one of them was a potential school shooter. Worse, she began stalking him after he left school – including on social media.

[Image: Annie G. Reed Goldman, Dean of Labor and HR at LACCD]

Further articles questioned where Academic Degrees were given out to students who had not completed Academic classes and criteria, the role of Jo Ann Rivas turned YouTube Personality ‘AuditLA’ who was on the Los Angeles Valley College Citizen’s Building Oversight Committee, whether a number of students with falsified resumes received payments from a Grant as ‘Professional Experts’ etc . . .

The scrubbing of these articles coincided with the formal appointment of Alberto J. Roman as the new Chancellor of the Los Angeles Community College District, following the retirement of disgraced administrator Francisco Rodriguez.

It also came with the publication of two final articles. One about Annie G. Reed’s being named as a Defendant in a lawsuit by former faculty at Los Angeles City College, who came to her about an administrator engaging in illegal behavior – including planting drugs on employees to get them fired.

The second article, probed Los Angeles Valley College Department Chair, Eric Swelstad’s professional bio again and provided evidence that he repeatedly lied and engaged in deceptive advertising and practices for two decades. It provided students who held loans with information about student borrower defenses.

The censorship also came months after Jo Ann Rivas aka AuditLA, herself probed by the articles, launched a barrage of attacks for about a week in January about a former student who had grievance's against the school. Rivas had previously engaged in a similar barrage in July 2020.

This was not the first time that an attempt was made to censor this news stream.

In 2020, an attempt was made to hack the community news feed account on Twitter/X.com @LACCDW. Then a week before the LACCD Board of Trustees election in November 2020, Twitter suspended the community newsfeed altogether. It was only restored two years later after Twitter's sale and the re-evaluation of previous suspended accounts.

In a final update – The Valley Academic and Cultural Center, despite having a 2018 completion date, remains unfinished. According to minutes of the LAVC Work Environment Committee Minutes from 2025-05-08;

“The Valley Academic and Cultural Center (VACC) is as of Friday, May 8th, about 80% complete. They are still patching the roof. There are still some critical items like stage protection net.”

The Market Myth in Higher Education: A Critical Look at Richard Vedder's Let Colleges Fail

In Let Colleges Fail: The Power of Creative Destruction in Higher Education, economist Richard Vedder calls for higher education to be subjected to the harsh discipline of the free market. He argues that many colleges are bloated, inefficient, and obsolete—and that the solution is to allow market forces to “creatively destroy” them. In his view, less federal support, more privatization, and greater competition will fix what ails American higher education.

But Vedder’s market fundamentalism ignores the real-world consequences of such policies—and conveniently sidesteps decades of evidence showing that when markets fail, it's working people who bear the costs, not the powerful.

---

For-Profit Colleges: A Market-Based Disaster

If we want a glimpse into what happens when market logic is unleashed on education, we need only look at the for-profit college sector. For-profit institutions like Corinthian Colleges, ITT Tech, and Education Management Corporation were poster children for market efficiency—until they collapsed under the weight of scandal, fraud, and student exploitation. These schools often charged high tuition for low-quality programs, aggressively marketed to vulnerable populations, and left students saddled with debt and worthless credentials.

Taxpayers ultimately footed the bill through federal student loan programs, while executives walked away with millions. And even now, many for-profit schools continue to operate under new names or private equity ownership, still profiting off federal aid with minimal oversight. If Vedder truly believed in letting failures die, he would have demanded their immediate closure and repayment to the public. Instead, many market advocates stayed silent—or worse, defended them as “innovative.”

---

Market Hypocrisy: Bailouts for Banks, Austerity for Schools

Vedder's vision also suffers from historical amnesia. During the 2008 financial crisis, the same economists and think tanks who champion “creative destruction” for universities were demanding massive bailouts for Wall Street. The federal government ultimately handed out hundreds of billions of dollars to prop up failing banks, insurers, and automakers—because letting them fail would supposedly destroy the economy.

So why is it that banks and corporations get bailouts, but working-class students and struggling public colleges are told to sink or swim? Why is failure noble when it happens to a rural community college, but catastrophic when it threatens JPMorgan Chase?

The truth is, markets aren’t neutral. They reflect and reinforce existing power structures. And in higher education, unregulated markets have consistently failed to protect students or serve the public good.

---

The Real Role of Public Investment

Higher education, like health care or clean water, is a public good. It creates informed citizens, social mobility, and innovation. But it requires thoughtful public investment, not just price signals and profit motives.

Rather than letting colleges fail, we should be asking why so many institutions—especially public and minority-serving colleges—are underfunded to begin with. We should be talking about reining in administrative bloat and student loan profiteering, yes—but also about restoring federal and state funding, enforcing accountability on predatory institutions, and protecting academic programs that serve more than just labor market demands.

---

Conclusion

Vedder’s Let Colleges Fail is a provocative title, but it’s based on a tired and dangerous premise: that markets always know best. The history of for-profit education, the hypocrisy of corporate bailouts, and the lived experience of millions of indebted students tell a very different story. The solution to the crisis in higher education isn’t to let institutions fail—it’s to build a system that prioritizes public responsibility over private gain.

The Largest American University Endowments (Adjunct Noise)

The Harvard Business School Paradox: Ethics, Elites, and the Theatre of Honesty

For the first time in nearly 80 years, Harvard University has taken the extraordinary step of revoking the tenure of a faculty member—Francesca Gino, a former professor at Harvard Business School (HBS) known for her widely publicized research on ethics, decision-making, and organizational behavior. The irony of her downfall—accused of academic dishonesty while researching honesty—has been noted by nearly every outlet covering the story. But a deeper question lingers: What does Gino’s story tell us about Harvard Business School and the neoliberal system it both serves and symbolizes?

Ethics as Performance in a Neoliberal Order

Gino, once celebrated for championing ethical behavior and "rebel talent," now stands accused of falsifying data in multiple academic papers. But HBS’s brand of ethics—delivered through expensive executive programs and best-selling books—is part of a larger performance in which corporate elites are taught to appear virtuous while perpetuating systems that concentrate wealth, exploit labor, and externalize harm.

In this context, ethics becomes less about justice or truth and more about managing perceptions. The fall of Francesca Gino is dramatic, but the real ethical crisis lies not in her alleged misconduct alone—it lies in the institutional contradictions embedded within HBS itself. Harvard Business School doesn’t just teach capitalism; it molds the gatekeepers of global capital. Its mission is not merely to educate but to replicate and legitimize a system that increasingly rewards the few at the expense of the many.

HBS: The Training Ground for Economic Power

From Wall Street executives to Silicon Valley disruptors, the alumni of Harvard Business School include some of the most powerful figures in global finance and industry—many of whom have presided over layoffs, environmental degradation, and financial schemes with far more damaging consequences than academic fraud.

The school’s ethos is rooted in neoliberal values: deregulation, privatization, shareholder primacy, and labor "flexibility." These principles have driven inequality to historic levels, eroded public trust in institutions, and created a permanent underclass of precarious workers—including the adjuncts and support staff who toil in the shadows of Harvard's gilded brand.

That Gino was one of Harvard’s highest paid employees, earning over $1 million a year, underscores the commercialization of academia. Her high-profile persona, media presence, and prolific publication record made her not just a scholar but a product—one the institution proudly marketed until it became inconvenient.

The Politics of Academic Accountability

The revocation of Gino’s tenure has been portrayed as a triumph of academic accountability. But it also reveals the selective nature of institutional justice. While Harvard moved swiftly to investigate and sanction Gino, other faculty members in elite institutions—some with clear ties to ethically questionable industries or discriminatory practices—remain unscathed, protected by the very power structures they serve.

Moreover, this case unfolds against a broader political backdrop in which Harvard, like other elite universities, is entangled in legal and ideological battles with the federal government. From fights over DEI initiatives and student visas to federal funding for research, the university’s moral posturing often masks a pragmatic calculus: preserving its endowment, its influence, and its brand.

A System that Rewards Deception

That Harvard Business School fostered—and then disowned—a figure like Francesca Gino should surprise no one. The institution’s most infamous alumni include architects of the 2008 financial crisis and leaders of corporations known for tax evasion, union busting, and regulatory capture. In such a system, the real problem isn’t dishonesty—it’s getting caught.

Gino’s downfall may satisfy the university’s need for a scapegoat, but it doesn't address the deeper malaise at the heart of elite business education. Harvard Business School produces managers, not moral leaders. It shapes ideologies, not communities. And in doing so, it offers up a sanitized vision of capitalism in which individual ethics can redeem systemic violence.

Conclusion: The Theatre of Respectability

Francesca Gino’s tenure revocation is a symbolic gesture—one that reinforces the illusion that elite institutions police themselves rigorously. But the real fraud is more abstract and far more consequential: it is the fraud of presenting institutions like Harvard Business School as guardians of ethical capitalism, while they actively reinforce the economic logic of exploitation.

In a just world, the moral bankruptcy of neoliberalism would be exposed not by a professor’s faked data, but by the suffering of workers laid off for shareholder gains, the communities displaced for private equity ventures, and the global inequities entrenched by the very graduates these schools send into the world.

Until then, we are left with what Gino herself once studied: the subtle science of dishonesty. Only now, the lab is Harvard—and the experiment is ongoing.

---

The Higher Education Inquirer continues to investigate the contradictions and inequalities embedded in American higher education, especially as they relate to labor, class, and power. Follow us for more independent, critical analysis.

Latest Borrower Defense to Repayment Numbers (US Department of Education)

The Higher Education Inquirer has received information today from the US Department of Education about Borrower Defense to Repayment claims.  Here are the results from ED FOIA 25-02047-F.  

 

Universities Brace for Endowment Tax Hike, Rethink Investment Strategies

A sweeping new tax proposal from House Republicans threatens to upend how some of the wealthiest U.S. universities manage their endowments, marking what could be the biggest strategic shift in a generation.

As part of the broader Trump-backed tax bill that passed the House last week, the proposal would raise the excise tax on endowment investment income for private universities with large endowments from the current 1.4% to a staggering 21%—the same rate levied on corporations. The bill now moves to the Senate, where its fate remains uncertain.

If enacted, this change could significantly alter how universities invest their endowment funds—often worth billions of dollars. Institutions are now weighing a move away from short-term, high-return strategies in favor of more tax-deferred investment vehicles like private equity, which typically don’t generate taxable income until years down the line.

A Shift in Strategy

The Wall Street Journal reports that officials at eight private institutions have already begun considering how to adapt. “Tax efficiency,” once a secondary concern, is becoming a central lens through which investment decisions are being made.

Yet the path forward is complex. Many university endowments are already heavily invested in long-term vehicles. While these investments can offer deferral of taxable gains, they also require capital calls—obligations to fund previously committed capital—which, coupled with the new tax burden, could strain liquidity. As a result, universities may also need to increase their holdings in cash or liquid assets, a move that could reduce overall returns.

Who’s Affected

While the increased tax burden will fall heaviest on the richest institutions—such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford—it could also impact dozens of other private colleges with sizable endowments. The current law applies to private schools with at least 500 students and net assets of $500,000 per student. The new plan could expand the scope and deepen the financial impact.

Critics argue that the measure is politically motivated, targeting elite institutions that have become symbols of cultural and ideological opposition for many on the right. Supporters of the bill frame it as an issue of tax fairness: why should wealthy universities—with endowments rivaling small sovereign wealth funds—pay less than corporations?

Impact on Students and Operations

The increased tax liabilities may also have a downstream effect on students, faculty, and university operations. If institutions shift more resources toward taxes and compliance, there could be less money available for financial aid, faculty hiring, and academic programming.

Universities may also respond by reducing capital commitments to private markets, pausing infrastructure projects, or placing greater emphasis on tuition revenue and donor fundraising to offset the higher tax costs.

A Broader Political Shift

The proposed tax hike is part of a larger pattern of growing political scrutiny of higher education institutions, especially elite ones. From student debt relief to DEI initiatives and Title IX regulations, universities have found themselves at the center of ideological battles. Now, their finances are becoming a new front in that war.

If the Senate passes the tax bill, universities will be forced to act swiftly. Endowment managers, already grappling with volatile markets and inflation pressures, will have to balance competing demands: protecting returns, ensuring liquidity, and staying compliant with a rapidly changing tax landscape.

In the end, the move may do more than shift investment strategies—it could fundamentally redefine the financial models of American higher education.

---

For more investigative reporting on U.S. higher education and the forces shaping its future, follow the Higher Education Inquirer.

DOD Fails to Update Postsecondary Education Complaint System

Is the US Department of Defense (DOD) actually handling complaints from service members and their spouses who are using DOD Tuition Assistance and MyTAA (the education program for spouses)? It's difficult to tell, and it's unlikely that they'll tell us. 

DD Form 2961 is used for servicemembers and their spouses to make complaints about schools. And it appears up to date.  And on their website, DOD still claims to help consumers work with schools about their complaints. 

But information about the US Department of Defense Postsecondary Education Complaint System (PECS), the system that handles the complaints, has not been updated in about a decade. Here's a screenshot from May 25, 2025.  

What we do know is that DOD VOL ED and the DOD FOIA team have stonewalled us for eight years to get important information about their oversight. We also know that DOD VOL ED has allowed bad actor schools to violate DOD policies as they prey upon those who serve.  Over the years we have notified a number of media outlets about these issues but few if any have shown interest. 

Delinquent and Disillusioned: The Student Loan Crisis Reignites Amid Economic and Policy Failures

Millions of student loan borrowers in the United States are falling behind on payments now that the COVID-era federal loan pause has ended—and the economic and personal consequences are mounting fast. The recent Wall Street Journal article “Millions of Americans Had Their Student-Loan Payments Put on Pause During the Pandemic. Now They Are Back on the Hook Again” paints a sobering picture of what happens when borrowers, many already living paycheck-to-paycheck, are reinserted into a punitive debt system with little warning or preparation.

According to the WSJ report, 5.6 million borrowers were marked newly delinquent in just the first quarter of 2025, as credit reporting resumed and wage garnishment letters started showing up in mailboxes. Delinquency rates surged from 0.7% to 8%, returning to pre-pandemic levels with alarming speed. While this may be a statistical “reversion to the mean” in economic terms, for those affected, it's a hard shock that could derail financial stability for years to come.

A System Ill-Equipped for Restart

The Biden administration’s temporary on-ramp expired in the fall of 2023. Since then, servicers, borrowers, and regulators have all struggled with the logistical and psychological whiplash of rebooting a system that had been on hold for over three years. Meanwhile, the Trump administration—eager to reassert austerity and fiscal discipline—has resumed the aggressive collections practices that defined the pre-pandemic era: wage garnishments, tax refund seizures, and Social Security offsets.

For millions, this reactivation has not come with transparency or support. Many received letters from unfamiliar loan servicers, the result of reshuffling in the student loan servicing industry during the pandemic. As University of Cambridge economist Constantine Yannelis told WSJ, borrowers who graduated during the payment pause may not have ever experienced repayment, and are now blindsided by bureaucratic demands and crumbling credit.

Credit Collapse and Economic Spillover

Among the most concerning revelations: borrowers with once-strong credit profiles are being dragged down. Nearly 2.4 million people with near-prime or prime credit ratings experienced sharp score declines—up to 177 points for those with scores over 720. That drop could shut borrowers out of mortgages, car loans, and even rental opportunities, extending the economic pain well beyond student debt.

Morgan Stanley economists warn that monthly student loan payments will rise by $1 billion to $3 billion, potentially shaving 0.1 percentage point from the 2025 U.S. GDP. While modest at the macroeconomic level, that drop represents hundreds of thousands of families tightening budgets, delaying major purchases, or skipping payments on other essentials.

And the demographic picture of who is struggling directly refutes tired stereotypes. University of Chicago economist Lesley Turner emphasized that those falling behind are not entitled Ivy League grads but disproportionately working-class Americans—especially those who attended for-profit or two-year colleges, or dropped out before earning a degree. Mississippi, where 45% of borrowers are delinquent, stands out as a cautionary tale in both poverty and policy failure.

A Fractured Policy Landscape

What’s happening now is not just a predictable economic phenomenon—it’s the result of a fractured and politically volatile policy environment. Biden’s efforts to implement broad debt relief through the SAVE plan and other targeted forgiveness efforts have been challenged in court and undermined by executive overreach claims. That legal uncertainty left many borrowers falsely optimistic that repayment would be permanently suspended or forgiven, influencing their financial planning.

Meanwhile, the ideological pendulum continues to swing: progressive reforms like income-driven repayment and borrower defense to repayment have been inconsistently applied, undercut by administrative churn and legal ambiguity. Now, under a returning Trump administration, the Department of Education is once again prioritizing collections over compassion.

What Happens Next?

There’s no clear trajectory forward. As Duke economist Michael Dinerstein noted, the path could go in either direction. If borrowers respond to delinquency warnings and enter into income-driven repayment (IDR) plans like SAVE, we may see stabilization. But without real outreach, forgiveness, or structural reform, millions more may default—and carry the economic scars for decades.

At the Higher Education Inquirer, we see this moment as a pivotal test—not just of financial resilience, but of our society’s willingness to reckon with an education system that has long promised mobility while delivering debt. The student loan system was broken before COVID. The pause merely masked the underlying rot. Now, with repayments back in motion, the cracks are widening into chasms.

If the U.S. is serious about building a stable middle class, supporting higher education access, and ensuring economic mobility, it must move beyond temporary pauses and court-contested forgiveness. We need durable reform, not debt servitude masquerading as opportunity. Until then, millions of Americans will remain caught in the crossfire between broken promises and broken policies.

---

For ongoing investigations into student debt, contingent labor, and the collapse of trust in U.S. higher education, follow the Higher Education Inquirer. 

Grand Canyon University and the Rise of the Robocollege: Mass Education or Mass Deception?

In an age when higher education is increasingly defined by scale, automation, and profit, Grand Canyon University (GCU) has emerged as a flagship for a new breed of institution: the “robocollege.” With over 125,000 students—more than 98,000 of them online—GCU's explosive growth is a case study in what happens when business efficiency collides with educational integrity.

What exactly are these students buying? And what, if anything, are they learning?

Education at Scale—But at What Cost?

GCU’s meteoric expansion reflects the broader boom in online education and a shift toward workforce credentialing over traditional liberal arts education. In theory, this means flexible, affordable education for all. But in practice, critics argue that GCU—and similar robocolleges—deliver a watered-down, highly standardized experience that prioritizes enrollment numbers and shareholder returns over intellectual development.

Classes often rely on templated syllabi, discussion boards policed by rubrics, and preloaded lectures. Assignments are frequently graded by software or overworked adjuncts paid by the piece. While GCU markets itself as a Christian university rooted in purpose and service, the reality for many students is an educational experience that feels impersonal, mechanized, and transactional.

Robocolleges and the End of Faculty

One of the more disturbing elements of this model is the erosion of faculty roles. At institutions like GCU, full-time professors are scarce, especially in online programs. Instead, armies of contingent instructors—many of them underpaid and invisible—serve as glorified content moderators. There is little room for mentoring, dialogue, or intellectual curiosity. Students often receive form-letter feedback and never develop relationships with instructors.

This is not education in any traditional sense—it's content delivery. And it's optimized for scale, not learning.

A Pipeline to What?

GCU has positioned itself as a career-focused institution, touting job readiness and Christian values. But for many students, the end result is a generic degree, heavy student debt, and limited upward mobility. According to College Scorecard data, the median earnings for GCU graduates ten years after entry hovers around $53,000—about average, but far from spectacular considering the cost.

Even more concerning: GCU’s parent company, Grand Canyon Education, is a for-profit contractor that operates much like the controversial education conglomerates of the 2000s. While GCU converted to nonprofit status in 2018, the U.S. Department of Education has raised repeated red flags about the true nature of that arrangement. In essence, GCU's nonprofit facade masks a highly profitable business model.

The Assembly Line of the Educated Underclass

Robocolleges like GCU are not designed to cultivate critical thinkers or scholars. They are factories, churning out degrees at the lowest possible cost. The students they attract—often working adults, parents, and veterans—deserve more than this. They deserve a system that treats them as learners, not customers. But under the robocollege model, education becomes a service industry, and students are simply consumers of prepackaged content.

We are witnessing the creation of an “educated underclass”—credentialed but disempowered, trained but not transformed.

Conclusion: A Warning Signal, Not a Model

GCU’s growth is not a triumph. It’s a cautionary tale. As policymakers and the public grapple with the future of higher education, we must ask ourselves: Is mass education worth it if it sacrifices meaning, mentorship, and genuine learning? The robocollege model offers convenience and scale—but at what cost to the human spirit of education?

Until we reckon with that question, the assembly line will keep running, churning out diplomas like widgets. And students, desperate for a better life, will keep buying in.

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell Praises U.S. Universities Amid Political Attacks

In a pointed yet diplomatically worded commencement address at Princeton University on Sunday, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell urged graduates to pursue public service, uphold democratic values, and appreciate the unique role of American higher education. His speech, though not directly confrontational, served as a subtle rebuke to recent political assaults on U.S. universities—particularly from former President Donald Trump.

Powell lauded America’s colleges and universities as “the envy of the world and a crucial national asset,” calling on the Class of 2025 not to take their education or democratic institutions for granted. “When you look back in 50 years,” he said, “you will want to know that you’ve done whatever it takes to preserve and strengthen our democracy and bring us ever closer to the Founders’ timeless ideals.”

These remarks arrive at a time of increasing hostility from some political quarters toward elite universities. During his presidency, Trump repeatedly threatened to cut federal funding to institutions like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton—accusing them of promoting what he described as anti-American values and discriminatory admissions practices. His administration’s Department of Homeland Security even attempted to revoke Harvard’s ability to enroll international students, a move temporarily blocked by a federal judge.

Though Powell did not mention Trump by name, the timing and tone of his remarks suggest a defense of U.S. higher education against political interference. This is not the first time Powell has found himself at odds with Trump. The former president publicly berated the Fed chair over interest rate policy and even suggested he should be fired—something Powell has said is not within the president’s authority.

Powell’s defense of public service and academic excellence comes amid a broader political campaign to undermine trust in elite institutions. The Trump-era attacks on higher education continue to resonate through Republican state legislatures and federal policy proposals, including executive orders aimed at dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and threatening Title IX protections.

Meanwhile, Powell emphasized that America's leadership in science, economics, and global innovation is no coincidence but the product of robust institutions—including its universities. “Look around you,” he told graduates. “Take none of this for granted.”

His call for public service may also ring hollow to graduates facing a daunting job market and a mountain of student debt—problems compounded by decades of underinvestment in public higher education, skyrocketing tuition, and the adjunctification of the academic workforce. Nonetheless, Powell’s appeal was rooted in idealism: that the next generation can help repair democracy and rebuild the public sector from within.

The Higher Education Inquirer notes that Powell’s remarks reflect a quiet but important ideological struggle in American politics: between those who see universities as engines of democratic progress and economic vitality, and those who view them as bastions of liberal elitism in need of reform—or retribution.

As the political and economic landscape of higher education continues to shift, Powell’s speech at Princeton may be remembered not just as a traditional commencement address, but as a line in the sand.

US House Passes Massive Spending and Tax Bill: Austerity for the Poor, Windfalls for the Rich

In the early hours of May 22nd, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a sprawling 1,100-page reconciliation package reflecting the policy priorities of the Trump administration and the Republican-led Congress. The vote was 215-214, with two Republicans joining all Democrats in opposition.

Marketed as a spending and tax overhaul, H.R. 1 delivers sweeping cuts to social safety net programs while providing substantial tax breaks for high-income households and corporations. The result: an estimated $4 trillion increase in the national debt and a federal deficit projected to rise by $230 billion annually, or roughly 10%.

A Bill Few Have Read, Pushed Through at Lightning Speed

Despite its magnitude, the final text of the bill was released just hours before the vote, after a 1 a.m. session of the House Rules Committee added a 42-page “manager’s amendment” that made major last-minute changes. The rushed timeline has left lawmakers, watchdogs, and the public scrambling to understand what exactly was passed.

Slashing the Safety Net, Bolstering Security and the Wealthy

Among the most significant impacts of the bill:

• Deep cuts to SNAP and Medicaid, achieved through both reduced funding and stricter eligibility requirements.

• Increased spending for the military, border wall construction, immigration enforcement, and detention facilities, offsetting about half of the domestic cuts.

• Tax changes that disproportionately harm low-income Americans while rewarding the wealthy, including restoration of the full state and local tax (SALT) deduction, which benefits high earners in high-tax states.

According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis, the bill will reduce “household resources”—including wages and federal benefits—by roughly 4% for the lowest-income households, while increasing them by a similar margin for the highest-income groups.

Ideological Riders: Culture War Embedded in Fiscal Policy

Tucked into the bill are provisions that go far beyond fiscal policy:

• Repeals of green energy initiatives and funding.

• A nationwide ban on gender-affirming care—not just for minors but for adults as well.

• A ban on abortion services.

• A clause limiting the federal judiciary’s ability to enforce court orders against the government, raising serious constitutional concerns.

These inclusions push the boundaries of what’s traditionally allowed in a reconciliation bill, which is supposed to be restricted to tax and spending measures.

Senate Showdown Ahead—Rules May Be Bent or Broken

The bill now heads to the Senate, where reconciliation rules technically shield it from the filibuster if its provisions are deemed budget-related. But those rules are under threat. Recent moves by the Senate—such as passing Congressional Review Act legislation in defiance of the Parliamentarian—suggest that Republican leadership may ignore or override procedural norms to push the bill through.

If H.R. 1 becomes law in its current form, it will represent one of the most radical rewritings of federal priorities in decades—tilting the scales toward militarization and wealth concentration while gutting public health programs and civil liberties.

Implications for Higher Education

While higher education is not directly targeted in the bill’s text—at least as far as early reviews can tell—the implications are ominous. Cuts to Medicaid and SNAP will harm low-income students who depend on those programs. Restrictive immigration and gender policies may force colleges into legal and ethical battles. And the bill’s broader austerity measures signal an era in which public institutions, already under stress, may face even deeper disinvestment.

As always, the devil is in the details. But for now, those details remain elusive—locked in a bill few have read and rushed through in the dead of night.

Failure to Communicate: VA Office of Inspector General no longer accepting emails and VA chatbot has no answers.

The Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Inspector General (VA OIG), is no longer accepting tips from veterans who have been ripped off by predatory subprime colleges--at least not via email. The Higher Education Inquirer, at one time, was an important source for information for the VA OIG, but the VA's watchdogs stopped corresponding with us a few years ago for no apparent reason. This failure to communicate is part of a longstanding pattern of indifference by the US Government (VA, DOD, ED, and DOL) and veterans' organizations towards military servicemembers, veterans, and their families who are working to improve their job skills and job prospects.   

VA's chatbot also has much to be desired.

Which U.S. Colleges Spend the Most on Student Support? (Studocu)

[Editor's note: The Higher Education Inquirer is presenting this press release for information only. This is not an endorsement of the organizations mentioned in article.]

• Ivy League institutions like Yale, Harvard, and MIT top the list, spending over $100K per student on academic support.
• Yale University leads in both categories, investing $225K per student in academic support and $53K in student services.
• A modest but consistent correlation was found between student support spending and graduation rates, particularly among top-tier institutions.

A new report by Studocu highlights the U.S. colleges investing most heavily in academic and student services and explores whether that support is linked to graduation outcomes.

Drawing on the most recent fiscal year data from IPEDS (2023), the study found a positive relationship between support spending and graduation rates, suggesting that per-student spending on departments which directly support student learning and wellbeing improve outcomes.

The analysis covered over 1,000 degree-granting institutions across the United States, each enrolling more than 100 undergraduate students. Financial data was compared against graduation rates to uncover trends in institutional spending.

The findings show that top-tier schools like Yale, Harvard, and MIT spend significantly more per student than the national average:

• National average for academic support: $2,933 per student
• National average for student services: $4,828 per student

Top Institutions on Academic Support per Student

Top Institutions on Student Services per Student

When comparing graduation rates to institutional spending, the study found:

• A 0.259 correlation between academic support spending and graduation rates
• A 0.23 correlation between student services spending and graduation rates

While the correlations indicate a positive relationship between support spending and graduation rates, it's important to note that other factors also play a role.

However, the findings still suggest that well-funded student support services may provide meaningful benefits especially for students who might otherwise might have failed.

 

About Studocu:

StuDocu is a student-to-student knowledge exchange platform where students can share knowledge, college notes, and study guides.

Methodology

Institutions were selected based on the following criteria:

• Enrollment of over 100 undergraduate students
• Offering degree-granting programs
• For multi-campus institutions, the largest campus was used

Institutions were divided into tiers:

• Tier 1: This typically includes Ivy League schools (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc.), as well as other top-tier highly selective institutions such as Stanford, MIT, and Caltech.
• Tier 2: This category can include strong public universities, well-regarded liberal arts colleges, and other private universities. Examples might include schools like NYU, the University of Michigan.
• Tier 3: These institutions are often regional colleges and universities.

Community colleges and technical colleges were not included in the study.

Spending was calculated per undergraduate student, and graduation rate was used as the primary indicator of academic success.

Sources

Data for this analysis was obtained from the IPEDS, including:

• Graduation rates
• Undergraduate enrolment
• Academic support and student services expenditures

Caveats

• Financial data is current through the 2023 fiscal year * the latest available data
• Institutional reporting standards may vary, between public, private non-profit, and for-profit institutions