Search This Blog

Tuesday, July 15, 2025

FOIA Request Seeks Updated Borrower Defense Data from U.S. Department of Education

The Higher Education Inquirer has submitted a new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the U.S. Department of Education seeking updated data on Borrower Defense to Repayment (BDR) claims.

Specifically, the request asks for the latest report generated from the Department’s Consumer Engagement Management System (CEMS)—the internal platform that tracks borrower complaints and federal discharge decisions related to school misconduct and misrepresentation. The request mirrors a prior release, FOIA Request No. 22-00011-F, which produced a 94-page report itemizing all institutions with BDR claims, the number of applications per school, and their adjudication status (approved, denied, pending, or closed).

This new request covers the period from July 15, 2024 through July 13, 2025, a timeframe that includes a volatile political year, further fallout from collapsed for-profit schools, ongoing litigation, and changes in regulatory enforcement under a fractured Department of Education.

The goal of this FOIA request is to provide the public with clear, updated, and comprehensive insight into which schools—across all sectors—continue to generate complaints from borrowers who claim they were misled or defrauded. These data are vital for researchers, journalists, legal advocates, and students trying to navigate an often opaque and treacherous higher education marketplace.

The original CEMS disclosure from 2022 helped illuminate systemic abuse, particularly among large for-profit college chains and online universities. It also revealed how some nonprofit and public institutions had quietly accumulated significant numbers of BDR claims, often with little media scrutiny or regulatory response.

The current FOIA request follows growing public concern over borrower protections, the fairness and efficiency of the BDR process, and the lack of institutional accountability. While the Department of Education has discharged billions in student debt under expanded BDR rules in recent years, critics argue that transparency has been lacking—especially as political and legal pressure intensifies.

In submitting this request, the Higher Education Inquirer reaffirms its commitment to independent, investigative journalism focused on the intersection of education, debt, and power. Once the data are released, HEI will analyze and publish key findings to expose patterns of harm, regulatory failure, and corporate influence—wherever they may lie.

Source:
FOIA Request No. 25-04397-F, U.S. Department of Education, July 13, 2025
Prior FOIA Disclosure: FOIA 22-00011-F, released 2022 (94-page CEMS report)

Genio Launches AI Policy Template as Student AI Usage Surges to 92% While Institutional Guidance Lags. Free template addresses critical gap as nine in 10 students worry about breaking AI rules due to unclear institutional policies

CLEARWATER, FLA, July 15 2025—Genio, a provider of learning tools that significantly improve student success, today announced the release of a comprehensive AI Policy Template to help higher education institutions develop clear, consistent guidelines for artificial intelligence use in academic settings. The launch comes as new data reveals that student AI adoption has surged to 92% in 2025, up dramatically from 66% in 2024, while 91% of learners remain concerned about inadvertently violating institutional rules due to ambiguous or inconsistent AI guidance.


The free template addresses a critical challenge facing higher education: the disconnect between rapidly increasing student AI usage and institutional preparedness. Despite nearly universal student adoption of AI tools, the vast majority of learners report that current guidance from their institutions is either lacking, unclear, or applied inconsistently across departments and courses.


The absence of clear, institution-wide AI policies leaves both educators and students uncertain about appropriate usage, creating potential for academic misconduct. Additionally, without standardized guidelines, different departments and instructors apply varying standards, creating confusion and potential unfairness. And, looking ahead, the lack of structured AI guidance fails to equip learners with the responsible AI skills increasingly essential in today's job market.


The AI Policy Template provides institutions with a document education professionals can download to create their own:


  • Clear frameworks for defining appropriate AI tool usage across academic disciplines;

  • Guidelines for maintaining academic integrity while embracing technological advancement;

  • Strategies for reducing the digital divide rather than expanding it;

  • Protections for both educators and learners through consistent policy application; and

  • Structured approaches to teaching responsible AI usage as a critical workforce skill.


The template emphasizes what Genio calls "productive friction," a balanced approach that neither prohibits AI use nor allows unrestricted access, but instead creates structured guidelines that support learning while maintaining academic rigor. This approach recognizes that AI literacy is becoming as essential as traditional digital literacy skills.

For institutions facing the dual pressures of enrollment challenges and the need to prepare students for an AI-integrated workforce, the template offers a practical starting point for policy development. The resource is designed to be adapted to individual institutional needs, policies, and applicable legal requirements.


“AI has fundamentally changed how students approach their academic studies, but institutions have been caught off-guard by the speed of adoption,” said Josh Nesbitt, CTO at Genio. “Students want to use AI responsibly, but they need clear guidance on what this really means in practice. Our template provides institutions with a framework that maintains academic integrity while preparing students for an AI-driven workforce. The goal isn’t to prohibit AI use, but to create productive friction that ensures students develop critical thinking skills alongside AI fluency.”


The AI Policy Template is available for immediate download. The template is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Institutions should adapt the template in accordance with their own policies, protocols, and applicable laws.


About Genio

Genio (formerly Glean) creates beautifully simple learning tools that boost knowledge, skills, and confidence. Trusted by over 900 higher education institutions globally, our products support individuals of all abilities to learn more effectively. Best known for our lecture note taking tool, Genio now offers presentation rehearsal support, study skills courses, and more.


For more information on Genio, visit https://genio.co

FOIA Requests Are Foundational to HEI Research

The Higher Education Inquirer has filed 34 Freedom of Information requests with the US Department of Education over the last two years.  The documents that we receive have been essential ingredients in the legitimacy of our articles.  We also submit FOIA requests to the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Defense, as well as media requests with the State Department and Securities and Exchange Commission.  As a public service, we also provide the documents, in digital form, at no cost to those who request them.  


 

Economic Update: Capitalism and Culture, Their Connection in Crisis Now (Richard Wolff with Henry Giroux)

On this week’s episode of Economic Update, Professor Wolff provides updates on Medicare advantage and "pre-authorization" as a way to reduce Medicare payments, liberals and radicals split over Mamdani, Trump's current budget further deepens the inequality of wealth across the US, and Mexico attends the BRICS meeting in Rio de Janeiro. In the second part of today’s show, Professor Wolff interviews Professor Henry Giroux from McMaster University, Canada, on capitalism, culture, and fascism in the U.S. today.

Who Rules Higher Education in Florida?

Florida has emerged as a bold experiment in the transformation of American education, a place where the traditional lines between public and private, church and state, learning and indoctrination have become increasingly blurred. The state’s sprawling educational apparatus—from taxpayer-funded religious K–12 schools to politically captured public universities and a booming for-profit college industry—has been reshaped by a tightly knit network of ideological, financial, and political interests. The central question now is no longer just what Florida’s students are learning, but who is deciding what gets taught, who profits, and who is left behind.

This transformation did not begin overnight. It accelerated sharply under the administration of Governor Ron DeSantis, who has leveraged Florida’s educational system as a tool of ideological warfare. But the system’s current shape reflects a deeper pattern of coordinated influence, in which political appointees, religious institutions, for-profit executives, and powerful donors have each claimed a stake in the state’s educational future.

At the K–12 level, Florida now operates the nation’s largest private school voucher program. House Bill 1, passed in 2023, dramatically expanded eligibility, allowing nearly every student in the state to access public funds to attend private schools. The vast majority of these schools are religious in nature, with many promoting evangelical or fundamentalist Christian ideologies. The curricula often reject mainstream science, promote historical revisionism, and enforce gender and sexual conformity. These schools are not subject to the same accreditation or teacher certification standards as public institutions. They are legally permitted to discriminate in admissions, reject LGBTQ+ students, and bypass standardized academic expectations, all while receiving millions in taxpayer subsidies.

The expansion of vouchers has created a shadow education system—one that is state-funded but privately controlled. Some schools operate out of church basements or repurposed office buildings, others are part of large religious networks tied to national political movements. While the promise of "school choice" is used to market these reforms, in practice the policy has enabled a rapid exodus of students from public schools and directed public funds into ideologically driven and poorly regulated institutions. Investigations have revealed schools with histories of fraud, abusive discipline, and woeful academic performance continuing to receive state dollars with little to no oversight.

As students age into adulthood, the ideological structure built in the K–12 years feeds directly into Florida’s remade higher education system. The state’s public universities, long regarded as rising stars in research and student access, have become targets of political intervention. The takeover of New College of Florida in 2023 marked a turning point. Once a small, progressive liberal arts college, New College was transformed into a conservative experiment through political appointments and ideological purges. Faculty were pushed out. Curriculum was rewritten. Leadership was handed to figures with close ties to right-wing think tanks.

This playbook has since been replicated across the State University System. Boards of trustees are now stacked with DeSantis allies. Presidents are chosen not for academic leadership, but for political loyalty. Diversity, equity, and inclusion programs have been banned. Faculty are monitored. Student protests are suppressed. The message is clear: Florida’s public colleges are no longer institutions for the free exchange of ideas—they are instruments of ideological alignment.

Private colleges, meanwhile, have flourished in this environment—especially those aligned with conservative religious values. The University of Miami, while officially nonsectarian, operates in close partnership with powerful biomedical and corporate interests. Rollins College, one of the most prestigious liberal arts schools in the state, remains publicly apolitical but thrives by catering to the children of Florida’s wealthy elite. Religious institutions like Ave Maria University and Palm Beach Atlantic University are more explicit in their missions. Founded with deep connections to conservative Catholic and evangelical movements, these schools are more than just educational spaces—they are ideological outposts for a political and religious project that seeks to reshape American life.

Ave Maria, established by Domino’s Pizza billionaire Tom Monaghan, operates under strict Catholic dogma and enforces a rigid moral code for students. Palm Beach Atlantic champions evangelical Christian values and produces graduates steeped in conservative social teachings. These colleges, along with others in their orbit, often serve as landing pads for students educated in the voucher-funded religious K–12 system. The ideological pipeline is seamless, and its impact is lasting.

Beneath the surface, Florida’s for-profit colleges and credential mills continue to expand, often flying under the radar. Keiser University, once for-profit and now nominally nonprofit, functions much like a for-profit entity, aggressively recruiting students and maximizing revenue through online expansion and federal aid capture. Everglades University, Full Sail University, and dozens of cosmetology, theology, and career schools target working-class Floridians, military veterans, and immigrants with promises of upward mobility. In reality, many of these institutions saddle students with unmanageable debt and provide degrees of questionable value. Oversight is weak. Accreditation standards are often minimal. The end result is a parallel higher education market that profits off desperation and systemic inequality.

Connecting these layers of Florida’s educational system is a network of donors, foundations, and political groups. Organizations like the Council for National Policy, the Heritage Foundation, and the Claremont Institute exert disproportionate influence. Billionaires like Rebekah Mercer, Ken Griffin, and the Uihlein family fund candidates, schools, and think tanks that support the dismantling of public education and the promotion of conservative Christian alternatives. Hillsdale College, though based in Michigan, has launched affiliated charter-style “classical academies” in Florida and supplies training and curriculum to school boards eager to erase what they call “woke indoctrination.”

These efforts are coordinated, strategic, and well-funded. They are not random or reactionary. They represent the construction of a new education regime—one rooted in privatization, obedience, religious orthodoxy, and political control. Academic freedom, democratic engagement, and equitable access are treated not as ideals to strive for, but as threats to be neutralized.

The result is a cradle-to-career system in which education serves power rather than challenging it. From kindergarten classrooms preaching Christian nationalism to public universities led by political appointees to debt traps disguised as colleges, Florida’s students are moving through a system designed not to liberate but to conform. The public is funding it. The powerful are steering it. And for millions of students and families, the promise of education as a ladder to opportunity is becoming another broken dream.

The question of who rules education in Florida has a chillingly clear answer. Those who profit from ignorance. Those who fear critical inquiry. Those who believe education should serve the powerful, not the people. Florida may be the future—but not one built on truth, justice, or enlightenment. It is a future built on control.


Sources

Florida House Bill 1 (2023), Florida Legislature
Orlando Sentinel, “Florida Private Voucher Schools Often Fail Students. The State Still Pays.”
U.S. Department of Education, College Scorecard and IPEDS Data
Florida Department of Education, Private School Directory
Inside Higher Ed, “DEI Ban Signed in Florida”
Chronicle of Higher Education, “The New College Coup”
New York Times, “Florida’s Education Overhaul Has National Implications”
Council for National Policy, internal documents and reporting via The Intercept
IRS Form 990 filings for Keiser University, Ave Maria University, University of Miami
National Student Legal Defense Network, Complaints and Lawsuits Involving Florida Institutions
ProPublica, “The Billionaire Behind Ave Maria’s Catholic Utopia”
Hillsdale College, Barney Charter School Initiative: Partner School Directory and Curriculum

Borrower Defense Story 2: Anxiety & Interest (KH)

[Editor's note: This is the second story in a series about student loan debt and the moral necessity of Borrower Defense to Repayment. The first post is here.] 

My name is KH and I'm from Florida. My student debt crisis is very personal. I attended Kaplan University Online in 2008 while on bed rest after an accident. My family and I were extremely poor and so the idea of a college education to support my growing family was something that was appealing to me. 

My boyfriend at the time was in the agricultural field and only worked 4 or 5 months out of the year. We were so poor that even unmarried with a child he qualified to be on my SNAP and Medicaid applications. 

Once I made the call to Kaplan I was told that a degree would take us out of poverty, and we could live happily ever after. I was promised job placement and training for my future job. None of these things happened. I signed documents that indicated I was low income which allowed Kaplan to request more funding from FAFSA. 

Then the housing market crash of 2008 happened, and I switched majors to clinical psychology (I was told I would be in the therapeutic field once complete). In 2010 I had a phone call that made me look up the difference between FOR profit and nonprofit schools. Realizing I made a mistake, I switched schools to Lynn University which is a private (expensive) nonprofit. They were the only school that would take all of my credits from Kaplan. 

Fast forward to today, I am currently waiting to attend Southeastern Oklahoma State University to complete a Master's degree in School Counseling. 

I have received two different notifications from Mohela, my student loan servicer. The first indicates that I'm in-school deferment but it ends two weeks after I start class. Then my payment plans. There are two plans, one is for 700.00+ dollars and the other for 800.00+ dollars. One of my paychecks is 1700.00. There is no way I can survive with 1/2 my pay. 

I'm in the Borrower's Defense program because of the mismanagement by Kaplan. I also currently have multiple documents with multiple dates for repayment. There is no correct document that indicates what, when, or how I'm supposed to navigate this. Let me also state, the compounding interest is what makes this incredibly hard. I will be paying over 350,000 dollars from 120,000 in loans. 

This is criminal. Period.

Wake Forest and Kaplan: Selling Prestige in a Predatory Credential Market

Wake Forest University, a private institution with a proud 185-year history, has long marketed itself as a place for ethical leadership and elite scholarship. But its recent partnership with Kaplan—an infamous name in for-profit education and test prep—raises serious questions about the erosion of academic integrity and the corporatization of American higher education.

Wake Forest’s online offerings, now delivered in collaboration with Kaplan, are dressed in glowing promotional language. Prospective students are promised access to “a global network of 80,000+ alumni,” “1-on-1 guidance from a dedicated Student Success Manager,” and a curriculum shaped by “a Program Advisory Board of diverse business leaders.” The university assures working professionals that they can “earn a 100% online master’s degree or graduate certificate” on their own terms, with a “streamlined admissions process” and “flexible courses.”

But strip away the buzzwords and what’s left is a degree-granting operation outsourced to a for-profit education company with a controversial legacy. Kaplan, now owned by Graham Holdings (formerly the parent company of The Washington Post), has been at the center of lawsuits, regulatory scrutiny, and allegations of exploitative practices in its higher ed ventures—including its role in managing Purdue Global, formerly Kaplan University. The company has a long history of targeting vulnerable populations—especially working-class adults—with high-cost, low-value credentials that often don’t lead to the promised career outcomes.

So why is Wake Forest—an elite university with a storied reputation—collaborating with Kaplan?

The answer is simple: profit and scale.

In an era when even wealthy private universities are looking to expand their revenue streams, online education has become a lucrative frontier. But building and managing online degree programs in-house requires serious investment, time, and expertise. Enter Kaplan, which provides the infrastructure, marketing, enrollment management, and student support—all in exchange for a share of the revenue.

What does this mean for students?

It means that Wake Forest’s name is now being used to sell online degrees to mid-career professionals under the promise of prestige, convenience, and upward mobility—without the full intellectual, cultural, or communal experience that Wake Forest once symbolized. The degrees may bear the Wake Forest seal, but they are increasingly indistinguishable from the mass-produced credentials churned out by dozens of other universities that have sold access to their brands through partnerships with Online Program Managers (OPMs) like Kaplan, 2U, Wiley, and Coursera.

The “1-on-1 Student Success Manager” may sound supportive, but in practice these positions are often little more than call center roles staffed by Kaplan employees trained to ensure retention and upsell future courses—not to engage in meaningful academic mentorship.

The curriculum may be “developed and led by recognized faculty and industry experts,” but in many cases these are adjunct instructors or contract workers who have limited interaction with students and little say in the structure or pedagogy of the courses. This model contributes to the broader exploitation of contingent academic labor—an issue Wake Forest, like many elite universities, prefers not to discuss.

And the promise of becoming a leader “from anywhere” with a Wake Forest SPS degree? That too should be questioned. These degrees exist in an increasingly saturated credential market where employers are skeptical, return on investment is uncertain, and students often find themselves saddled with debt and disappointment.

If Wake Forest were truly committed to ethical leadership, it would take a hard look at the implications of commodifying its brand through a partnership with a company like Kaplan. Instead, it has chosen to chase market share and tuition revenue at the expense of its academic credibility—and at the risk of misleading students who believe they’re buying into the full Wake Forest experience.

The truth is this: Wake Forest is selling the illusion of prestige, wrapped in a glossy brochure of online convenience and corporate optimism. In reality, it’s another cog in a profit-driven machine that markets higher education as a product rather than a public good. And that’s not transformative change. That’s business as usual in the credential economy.



When Technology Can’t Outrun Environmental Collapse: The High Cost of Crypto and Other Energy-Hungry Innovations

There is a persistent narrative that technology will save humanity from the mounting environmental crises—climate change, resource depletion, and pollution—that threaten the planet. From clean energy breakthroughs to smart agriculture, the promise is that innovation will outpace destruction. But this optimism overlooks a harsh reality: many of today’s most advanced technologies, especially those that consume vast amounts of energy like cryptocurrencies, exacerbate environmental harm instead of reducing it. The earth’s ecological limits are too strict and immediate for technology alone to fix.

A key factor missing from many discussions is the concept of externalities—costs or damages that are not reflected in the market price of goods or services. Both economic and environmental externalities mean that the true price of technologies is often hidden from consumers, producers, and policymakers alike. When a technology harms the environment but doesn’t pay for that damage, the costs are effectively “externalized” to society and future generations.

Cryptocurrency Mining: An Externality Nightmare

Take cryptocurrency mining, especially Bitcoin, as a striking example. Bitcoin’s “proof of work” system demands enormous computing power, consuming electricity on the scale of entire countries such as Argentina or the Netherlands. However, the market price of Bitcoin does not include the environmental cost of that energy use—carbon emissions, air pollution, and water resource depletion are externalities borne by the planet, not the miners or investors.

Many crypto mining operations cluster in regions with cheap, carbon-intensive electricity. The associated greenhouse gas emissions accelerate climate change, but these environmental costs remain unaccounted for in economic transactions. Similarly, the rapid turnover of specialized mining hardware produces vast amounts of electronic waste that is seldom recycled properly, leaking toxins into ecosystems. These negative externalities are seldom reflected in the price of cryptocurrencies or factored into regulatory frameworks.

Other Technologies and Their Hidden Costs

It’s not only crypto. Artificial intelligence training requires massive computational resources that consume significant electricity, often generated by fossil fuels. Streaming services, cloud data centers, and the explosion of connected devices—collectively the “Internet of Things”—demand continuous power, driving emissions that are not typically included in consumer bills or corporate balance sheets.

The production of smartphones, laptops, and other electronics relies on mining scarce and environmentally damaging materials like lithium, cobalt, and rare earth elements. The social and ecological externalities here include habitat destruction, water pollution, and labor exploitation in vulnerable communities.

Even as companies promote efficiency gains, the rebound effect—where increased efficiency lowers costs and leads to increased consumption—means that total resource use continues to grow, magnifying external environmental harm.

Why Externalities Matter

Externalities are a core reason why technological innovation alone cannot save the environment. Without mechanisms to internalize these costs—through regulations, taxes, or market reforms—businesses and consumers have little incentive to change behavior. Technologies that appear profitable on paper may, in reality, impose devastating costs on ecosystems, human health, and climate stability.

Economic externalities can also distort investment priorities, leading to overinvestment in high-energy, resource-intensive technologies while underfunding sustainable alternatives that carry less hidden damage.

Toward a Holistic Solution

Addressing environmental destruction demands recognizing and correcting these externalities. Policies that tax carbon emissions, regulate electronic waste, and require transparency in supply chains can help internalize the true costs of technologies. Public awareness and ethical consumer choices also play a role in pressuring companies and governments.

Higher education institutions must contribute by researching externalities associated with emerging technologies and educating future leaders about sustainability challenges. Only by confronting the real costs behind innovation can society make wiser choices.

The Tech Future 

Technology is neither a guaranteed savior nor an inherent villain. It reflects the values and systems that shape its creation and deployment. Without reckoning with economic and environmental externalities, technological advances risk deepening rather than alleviating ecological crises. A sustainable future requires systemic change that prioritizes ecological limits and social justice—not just faster chips and smarter algorithms.


Sources:

  • University of Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index (2025)

  • Strubell, Emma, et al. “Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLP.” ACL 2019

  • Carlson, Shawn. “Bitcoin’s Energy Consumption Is a Problem—But It’s Not the Whole Problem.” Scientific American, 2022

  • International Energy Agency (IEA). “Data Centres and Data Transmission Networks,” 2023

  • Ghisellini, Patrizia, et al. “Environmental Sustainability of Rare Earth Elements: A Review.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 2024

  • The Shift Project. “Lean ICT: Towards Digital Sobriety,” 2019

  • Pigou, Arthur C. The Economics of Welfare (1920) — foundational theory on externalities

HEI Files FOIA to Expose Delays and Disparities in Borrower Defense Discharges

The Higher Education Inquirer has submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the U.S. Department of Education, seeking critical data on Borrower Defense to Repayment claims tied to some of the most notorious for-profit and career college chains in the United States. Filed on July 13, 2025, and formally acknowledged by the Department on July 14, this request seeks to uncover how many borrowers have received student debt relief, how many remain in limbo, and how many have been left in the dark despite being eligible.

The FOIA request includes a list of institutions with long histories of documented fraud, federal investigations, lawsuits, and closures. These include Corinthian Colleges (which operated Everest, Heald, and WyoTech), ITT Technical Institute, Westwood College, Marinello Schools of Beauty, the Art Institutes, Argosy University, American National University, Charlotte School of Law, DeVry University, Globe University/Minnesota School of Business, Independence University, Kaplan College/Kaplan University, Le Cordon Bleu, Missouri College, Mount Washington College, University of Phoenix, Virginia College, and Vatterott College.

For each institution, the Inquirer is requesting the number of borrowers identified for group discharge under the Borrower Defense authority. Of those, we are asking how many have had their loans discharged, how many cases remain pending, how many borrowers have been approved for discharge but not yet notified, and how many claims overlap with the class-action lawsuit Sweet v. McMahon (formerly Sweet v. Cardona and Sweet v. DeVos). For Corinthian Colleges specifically, the request also asks for the number of discharged borrowers under previous Department announcements and how many were also part of the Manriquez v. McMahon or Sweet settlements.

This data request covers the one-year period from July 13, 2024, to July 13, 2025, and asks for results in a structured, electronic format, preferably Excel.

The significance of this request cannot be overstated. Despite multiple well-publicized borrower defense settlements and mass discharge announcements, many defrauded students still have no clear idea whether they qualify for relief or when it might arrive. While the Department has made headlines for forgiving billions in student debt, especially for borrowers from predatory for-profit schools, those announcements often lack transparency and specificity. The FOIA request aims to fill those gaps and provide an accurate picture of the Department’s implementation of debt relief and justice for defrauded borrowers.

The Department of Education’s FOIA Service Center responded that the request has been received and is in queue. No further clarification is needed at this time, and no fees have been assessed. The Department did note that the current average processing time is 185 business days—over nine months. This timeline means that meaningful public disclosure may not happen until spring 2026, even as policymakers, advocates, and student debtors continue to push for faster relief and more accountability.

This FOIA request is part of the Higher Education Inquirer's ongoing efforts to investigate the afterlife of failed for-profit colleges, the bureaucratic delays in loan discharges, and the long shadow these schools have cast over the lives of working-class students. In many cases, these students were the first in their families to attend college and were aggressively targeted by institutions that promised fast-track careers and delivered financial ruin instead.

We will continue to monitor the Department’s response and will publish any findings we receive. If you are a former student of one of these schools and have filed a Borrower Defense claim—or have questions about whether you qualify—we invite you to share your experience. Your voice matters, and transparency is key to understanding how widespread the damage remains.

Contact the Higher Education Inquirer at gmcghee@aya.yale.edu.

Sources
U.S. Department of Education FOIA Acknowledgment Letter, July 14, 2025
FOIA Request No. 25-04397-F
Sweet v. Cardona (formerly Sweet v. DeVos), Case No. 19-cv-03674, N.D. Cal.
Manriquez v. DeVos, Case No. 3:17-cv-07210, N.D. Cal.
U.S. Department of Education Borrower Defense Updates – studentaid.gov

Monday, July 14, 2025

Did Higher Education Ever Have a Soul? A Response to Frank Bruni

In his New York Times opinion piece, “I’m Watching the Sacrifice of College’s Soul,” Frank Bruni laments the erosion of academic rigor and the rise of artificial intelligence in the college classroom. He worries that students read less, care more about networking, and rely too much on AI to write their papers. And he ties this perceived moral decay to the broader culture war era under a second Trump administration.

But if we are truly asking whether college has lost its soul, the answer lies not just in classroom etiquette, grade inflation, or even AI. These are surface symptoms. The deeper rot goes back much further—and runs much deeper.

In 2025, as student debt surpasses $2 trillion, adjuncts live paycheck to paycheck, and billion-dollar university endowments sit idle amid growing social crises, the question lingers like a ghost in the lecture hall: Did higher education ever have a soul?

Bruni suggests that something noble has been lost. But to mourn a fall from grace assumes there was grace to begin with. It assumes the soul of higher education was once intact—whole, ethical, virtuous. That assumption demands interrogation.

A Soul in Theory
From the founding of Harvard in 1636 to the post-WWII GI Bill expansion, there have always been idealistic threads: Socratic dialogue, liberal education, shared governance, land-grant missions to uplift the working class. Thinkers like John Dewey and W.E.B. Du Bois believed that education could be democratic and emancipatory, a crucible for ethical development and social justice.

But for every Du Bois, there was a Booker T. Washington being positioned to serve capitalism. For every land-grant university, there were extractive relationships with Indigenous lands and communities. For every golden age of college access, there were doors closed to women, Black Americans, and the working poor.

The soul, it seems, has always lived uneasily beside the dollar.

The Neoliberal Turn
In the last half-century, the contradictions have only grown starker. Beginning in the late 1970s and accelerating in the Reagan era, higher education became increasingly privatized, commodified, and financialized. Universities morphed into entrepreneurial corporations, presidents became CEOs, students became customers, and faculty became precarious gig workers. The soul of higher education—if ever there was one—was sold off in pieces. Not in a single transaction, but through thousands of small decisions: outsourcing food services, patenting research, expanding sports empires, launching predatory online programs, partnering with Wall Street, and calling it “innovation.”

Today, we see the results:

For-profit colleges and edtech firms exploiting vulnerable populations.

Public universities chasing out-of-state tuition while abandoning their mission to serve local and working-class communities.

DEI initiatives used as branding while workers on campus remain underpaid, underinsured, and over-policed.

Boards of trustees stacked with bankers, developers, and tech executives more loyal to markets than to mission.

And beyond the classrooms that Bruni mourns, darker truths persist—truths rarely explored in glossy alumni magazines or New York Times op-eds:

Fraternities continue to operate as quasi-criminal enterprises, protected by wealthy alumni and timid administrations. Hazing deaths, sexual assault, racial abuse, and alcohol-fueled violence are treated as unfortunate exceptions, rather than the predictable outcomes of a toxic culture of entitlement and silence.

NCAA football, the crown jewel of many flagship universities, thrives on the unpaid labor of student-athletes whose bodies are sacrificed for weekend entertainment and television contracts. Behind the pageantry lie lifelong injuries, untreated concussions, and a trail of lawsuits over traumatic brain damage—while coaches and athletic directors rake in seven-figure salaries.

These are not footnotes to the story of higher education’s moral decline. They are the story—central to understanding what kind of “soul” has actually animated American higher education for decades.

A Soul in Struggle
Yet to say higher education never had a soul would be to erase the people who have fought—and still fight—for it to matter.

The soul has lived in the pushback: in student protests for civil rights and against apartheid; in hunger strikes for living wages and union recognition; in the quiet resilience of community college faculty who refuse to give up on their students despite impossible workloads and poverty wages. It’s found in the Black campus movements of the 1960s and today, in the labor organizing of adjuncts and graduate students, and in underfunded tribal colleges and HBCUs resisting systemic neglect.

And the soul is alive in critique itself—in those willing to ask not only what students are learning, but why the university exists, who it serves, and who it exploits.

Where Do We Go from Here?
Frank Bruni mourns the death of something noble. But perhaps what’s dying isn’t the soul of higher education—it’s the illusion that the soul was ever fully alive within institutions so deeply enmeshed in money, hierarchy, and exclusion.

If higher education once had a soul, it now lies fragmented—compromised by institutional betrayal, bureaucratic inertia, and a corporate logic that values prestige over people. But to ask whether it ever had a soul is to ask whether the soul resides in institutions at all, or in the people struggling within and against them.

Perhaps we shouldn’t romanticize the past, but neither should we resign ourselves to the present.

The soul of higher education may never have been whole. But it has always been contested. And in that contest—between commerce and conscience, exclusion and liberation, silence and speech—we may yet find the spark to reimagine what education could be.

Because if the university is to be saved, its soul must be fought for—not assumed, and certainly not bought.


Sources:

  • Bruni, Frank. “I’m Watching the Sacrifice of College’s Soul.” New York Times, July 14, 2025.

  • U.S. Department of Education. Federal Student Aid Portfolio Summary. https://studentaid.gov/data-center

  • The Century Foundation. “The Adjunct Crisis.”

  • Flanagan, Caitlin. “Death at a Penn State Fraternity.” The Atlantic, November 2017.

  • NPR. “Inside the Secret World of College Fraternities.”

  • ESPN. “Concussion Lawsuits and the NCAA.”

  • The Chronicle of Higher Education. “How Billion-Dollar Endowments Avoid Spending.”

  • The Guardian. “Inside America’s College Debt Machine.”

  • American Association of University Professors (AAUP). “Trends in Faculty Employment Status.”

  • The Intercept. “EdTech and the Exploitation of Students.”

  • Washington Post. “DEI for PR, Not for Pay.”

  • Inside Higher Ed. “Boards of Trustees: Who They Really Represent.”

  • NLRB Rulings and Union Filings, 2010–2025.

Supreme Court Greenlights Layoffs and Department Dismantling: What It Means for the Future of U.S. Education

The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to move forward with its plan to lay off nearly 1,400 employees from the U.S. Department of Education. The decision permits the administration to resume work on reducing the department’s operations, a step that critics argue amounts to a closure of the agency.

The Court issued its ruling through the shadow docket, without explanation, and with the three liberal justices dissenting. The order pauses a lower court injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Myong Joun in Boston, who wrote that the layoffs would reduce the department’s capacity to fulfill its legal responsibilities. A federal appeals court had refused to stay Joun’s ruling while the administration appealed.

President Trump, in a post on his social media platform, praised the ruling, saying it would allow his administration to begin transferring functions of the department to the states. Education Secretary Linda McMahon also welcomed the decision, stating that the president has authority over agency operations and staffing.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent with Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, said the Court was allowing the executive branch to bypass legal limits. “When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it,” she wrote.

Two lawsuits, now consolidated, challenge the administration’s plan. One was filed by the Somerville and Easthampton school districts in Massachusetts, along with the American Federation of Teachers and other education groups. The other was filed by a group of 21 attorneys general. The lawsuits argue that the layoffs prevent the department from carrying out functions required by Congress.

Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, which represents the plaintiffs, criticized the Court’s action. “Without explaining to the American people its reasoning, a majority of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have dealt a blow to this nation’s promise of public education for all children,” she said.

The layoffs affect about 1,100 civil servants and 250 contractors. Since March, these employees have been on paid leave. Judge Joun’s injunction prevented their termination, though they have not been allowed to return to work. The Education Department had stated it was reviewing how to reintegrate them and asked staff to disclose other employment.

The Court’s decision is one of several recent rulings in favor of the administration’s efforts to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Last week, the justices permitted the administration to implement a plan to reduce the federal workforce. The Court has also previously allowed cuts to teacher-training grants.

On the same day as the ruling, over 20 states filed suit against the administration over frozen federal education funding for after-school programs and summer initiatives.

While the lawsuit over the department's dismantling continues in federal court, the Supreme Court's decision allows the administration to proceed with layoffs that could reduce the department’s ability to function. If the courts later find the plan illegal, the department's infrastructure may already be altered.

Sources:

  • Associated Press

  • NBC News

  • U.S. District Court (Judge Myong Joun)

  • Democracy Forward

  • Trump social platform

  • U.S. Department of Education internal communications

  • AFGE Local 252

Springer Nature, Fake Science, and the Deep Rot in Academic Publishing

Springer Nature, one of the world's largest and most prestigious academic publishers, is at the center of a growing storm over scientific credibility and the integrity of scholarly communication. Recent investigations—including a revealing article from the Dutch newspaper Het Financieele Dagblad—have exposed how fraudulent science has infiltrated top academic journals through so-called “paper mills,” where fake research is produced and sold to meet the pressure-cooker demands of the modern academic economy.

With over 9,400 employees and operations in more than 40 countries, Springer Nature is a colossal force in global publishing. Its annual revenue for 2024 was projected to reach as high as €1.85 billion, driven largely by thousands of journals across disciplines—from Nature Neuroscience and Nature Biotechnology to niche journals in pharmacology, machine vision, and business studies. It also owns the venerable Scientific American, one of the most recognizable science magazines in the English-speaking world.

But behind this massive publishing empire is a deeply flawed system—a system in which prestige and profit have become entangled, and where the imperative to “publish or perish” leads scholars to compromise ethical standards, sometimes relying on ghostwritten or entirely fabricated studies. Springer Nature and its peers, including Elsevier and Wiley, have faced mounting challenges in vetting the sheer volume of submissions, many of which are now known to be fraudulent. While publishers claim they are working to correct these issues, critics argue that such efforts are reactive, inadequate, and motivated more by public relations than a commitment to scientific rigor.

This crisis is not occurring in a vacuum. Springer Nature is not just a passive player victimized by bad actors; it is part of a profit-driven system that thrives on volume and prestige. The company has been preparing for a lucrative IPO, which valued its equity at €4.5 billion in late 2024. Its business model, like that of its competitors, relies on a steady flow of academic content—produced, reviewed, and edited largely by unpaid researchers—and then sold back to universities and libraries at exorbitant subscription fees.

This closed-access economy means that publicly funded research is often locked behind paywalls, inaccessible to the public and even to institutions with limited budgets. It’s a double-dip: taxpayers fund the research, then institutions must pay again to access the results. Meanwhile, authors surrender copyright to publishers, losing control of their own work. Academic libraries, especially at public and regional institutions, are left with shrinking access as journal subscription costs rise faster than inflation.

Springer Nature has positioned itself as a leader in open access, pledging that half of its primary research articles will be published open access in 2024. However, the open access model comes with its own set of problems. Author-pays fees can run into the thousands of dollars per article, creating a new kind of inequity where only well-funded researchers or institutions can afford to make their work accessible. This trend has led to the rise of predatory open-access journals, which exploit the model by charging fees without providing legitimate peer review.

The Higher Education Inquirer has previously documented how academic labor is exploited at every stage—from the graduate student submitting their first manuscript to the tenured professor reviewing papers without compensation. The recent revelations of widespread fraud, coupled with Springer Nature’s immense financial growth, should serve as a wake-up call. The academic publishing system is no longer merely a vehicle for knowledge sharing—it is a sprawling commercial enterprise riddled with ethical compromise.

The credibility of academic research is being eroded not just by dishonest authors, but by publishers who have allowed, and in some ways encouraged, the commodification of knowledge. With powerful institutions like Springer Nature at the helm, the scholarly publishing industry is in urgent need of structural reform—reform that prioritizes transparency, accountability, and public access over profit margins and market share.

Until then, the rot will persist beneath the glossy covers of high-impact journals, and the public’s trust in science—and higher education as a whole—will continue to suffer.

NEA, Trump, and Fascism

At the 2025 National Education Association (NEA) Representative Assembly in Portland, Oregon, the nation’s largest teachers union passed a resolution condemning Donald Trump and aligning itself against what it termed “fascism.” But the resolution went viral for all the wrong reasons—because the NEA misspelled “fascism” twice as “facism.” Critics pounced, and what might have been a serious political statement turned into a national punchline.

The NEA resolution declared that “the members and material resources of NEA must be committed to the defense of the democratic and educational conditions required for the survival of civilization itself” and pledged $3,500 in resources to support education against “facism.” The intent was clear: the union was signaling that Trump and his allies represent a threat to democracy and education. But the message was undermined by the basic literacy failure of the very educators tasked with teaching students how to spell.

The resolution passed in a closed-door session, as part of a growing trend among major unions to explicitly engage in anti-Trump activism. It also included language opposing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids and called for support of “mass democratic movements” in response to Trump’s possible return to power. Further, the NEA reaffirmed its decision to disaffiliate from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), citing concerns about the ADL’s stance on policing and Palestine.

The backlash was swift. Conservative pundits and right-wing lawmakers ridiculed the resolution’s spelling errors and denounced its political content as extremist. Representative Jim Walsh called it “hysterical slander” and mocked the NEA’s failure to meet even minimal professional standards. Moms for Liberty co-founder Tina Descovich said the NEA’s mistake exemplifies why many Americans believe public education is failing. Corey DeAngelis, a leading advocate for school choice, declared the situation “too rich to parody.”

The episode lit up right-wing media. The New York Post ran multiple pieces lampooning the union’s politics and literacy. Fox News accused the NEA of pushing a radical political agenda under the guise of professional development. Critics from across the political spectrum asked: how can educators credibly combat fascism if they can’t spell it?

But spelling errors aside, the deeper issue is the NEA’s increasing politicization in an already polarized era. While some educators and progressives cheered the resolution as a necessary stand against authoritarianism, others worried it would damage public trust in the profession and provide more ammunition for anti-union and school privatization forces.

The NEA has long walked a tightrope between its role as a labor union and as a political actor. In the Trump and post-Trump era, that tightrope is fraying. By elevating its political messaging—especially when done sloppily—the NEA risks alienating moderate members, energizing conservative opposition, and undermining its own credibility as a steward of public education.

This latest controversy may not be the NEA’s last misstep in an increasingly volatile political climate. But it is a cautionary tale. To confront genuine threats to democracy and education, unions must do more than pass resolutions. They must build trust, demonstrate competence, and articulate a vision that unites rather than divides. If they can’t even proofread their own declarations, the fight against fascism may start with a dictionary.


Sources
National Education Association, Resolution NBI 79, 2025 Representative Assembly
New York Post, “Largest US teachers union mocked for misspelling 'fascism' in anti-Trump agenda item,” July 10, 2025
Fox News, “Teachers union reveals true colors behind closed doors at annual convention,” July 11, 2025
The Free Press, “NEA Teachers' Union Goes All In on Politics—And Spelling Errors,” July 11, 2025
WBZ News Radio, “Largest US Teachers Union Misspells ‘Fascism’ While Bashing Trump,” July 11, 2025
Yahoo News, “Social media erupts as nation's largest teachers union misspells 'fascism' in anti-Trump statement,” July 12, 2025

Elite Higher Education and the Epstein Files

The Jeffrey Epstein scandal is not just about the crimes of one man—it is a window into the pathology of elite power in America. At the center of Epstein’s network were not only celebrities and financiers, but the leaders of elite universities, powerful legal minds trained at Ivy League institutions, former presidents, cabinet officials, and judges. These individuals and institutions helped legitimize Epstein, enabled his abuse, and later participated in the cover-up—directly or through willful silence.

Epstein built his power not just through money, but through proximity to institutions that conferred prestige and trust. Harvard University accepted more than $9 million in donations from Epstein, even after his 2008 conviction for soliciting sex from a minor. Epstein was granted office space, invited to events, and listed in directories like a visiting fellow. Harvard only conducted an internal investigation years later, long after the damage had been done. MIT, through its Media Lab, secretly accepted Epstein’s donations while attempting to conceal his involvement. Director Joi Ito was forced to resign, but no criminal or civil penalties were imposed on university leadership. Stanford, the Santa Fe Institute, and other elite academic hubs welcomed Epstein into their conferences, roundtables, and salons. Some researchers claimed ignorance of his criminal record. Others looked away in exchange for funding.

The most visible defenders and enablers of Epstein included powerful figures in law and politics with close ties to elite academia. Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law professor emeritus and one of Epstein’s longtime attorneys, was not only his legal defender but also named in sworn affidavits as someone to whom Epstein trafficked underage girls. Dershowitz has denied all allegations and launched a years-long legal campaign to discredit accusers and journalists. Yet Harvard has remained largely silent about his conduct, choosing not to distance itself meaningfully from a man who helped give Epstein the shield of institutional legitimacy.

Former President Bill Clinton, a Yale Law graduate and darling of global academic initiatives, flew on Epstein’s private jet over two dozen times. He has denied visiting Epstein’s private island or engaging in any misconduct, but flight logs, meeting records, and photos raise questions. Epstein donated to the Clinton Foundation, which partnered with numerous universities and research institutions. Clinton’s elite credentials helped whitewash Epstein’s image, just as Epstein used those connections to advance his own agenda.

The most disturbing developments have occurred more recently, with mounting evidence of a high-level cover-up that has delayed justice and protected powerful men. Government officials tied to elite education—Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Stanford—have played key roles in suppressing evidence. Former U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, a Harvard Law graduate, brokered Epstein’s original 2008 plea deal in Florida. Acosta later claimed he was told Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” When Epstein was arrested again in 2019 and died in federal custody under suspicious circumstances, then–Attorney General William Barr oversaw the investigation. Barr, a Columbia graduate whose father once hired Epstein at the elite Dalton School despite Epstein lacking a degree, later insisted that the death was a suicide. No one in government has ever been held accountable for the failures that followed.

Federal judges reviewing Epstein-related cases and redacting the names of associates have largely come from the Ivy League pipeline. These judges, some of whom clerked for Supreme Court justices, have delayed the release of court documents, citing privacy concerns—often for public figures with deep institutional affiliations. The result has been a legal process that drags on for years while survivors wait for truth and the public is left in the dark.

This convergence of elite academia, elite law, and elite governance shows that the Epstein case is not an outlier but a reflection of a closed system. Epstein embedded himself in elite universities not to learn or teach, but to launder his image and buy access. The universities, desperate for funding and star power, let him. Government officials, trained by and connected to the same institutions, protected him. And when the truth threatened to surface, they slowed the release of files, discredited whistleblowers, and hid behind legal formalities.

What makes this scandal different from others in higher education is not just the scale of abuse, but the depth of institutional complicity. Universities cannot hide behind the claim of ignorance. Government officials cannot pretend to be impartial arbiters of justice when they are protecting their own.

If elite higher education wants to regain any moral authority, it must reckon honestly with the Epstein files—not just the names of those involved, but the systems that allowed it all to happen. That means disclosing donor histories, creating independent oversight mechanisms, and ending the culture of secrecy that shields the powerful. Otherwise, these institutions are not bastions of knowledge—they are sanctuaries for predators in suits and ties.

The real legacy of Jeffrey Epstein is not confined to courtrooms or island estates. It is inscribed in the halls of elite universities, in sealed court records, and in the offices of high-ranking officials who quietly ensured that justice was delayed and distorted. The question is not how this happened—but how many more like him remain hidden, protected by the same structures of prestige and power that allowed Epstein to thrive.


Sources
Harvard University Office of the General Counsel, Report Concerning Jeffrey Epstein’s Donations, May 2020
Julie K. Brown, Perversion of Justice: The Jeffrey Epstein Story, Harper, 2021
The New Yorker, “How an Elite University Research Lab Hid Its Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein,” Ronan Farrow, September 2019
The New York Times, “Jeffrey Epstein Visited Clinton White House Multiple Times,” January 2022
Giuffre v. Maxwell court filings, U.S. District Court, SDNY, 2024
Department of Justice, Inspector General reports, 2020–2024
Public statements and court documents from Alan Dershowitz, Alex Acosta, William Barr
MIT Media Lab internal emails obtained by The New Yorker
Law.com reporting on Kirkland & Ellis’ involvement with Epstein’s legal defense
Dalton School employment records and biographical history of William Barr and Donald Barr

Sunday, July 13, 2025

The Chronicle of Higher Education and the Knowledge Busine$$

As U.S. higher education faces unprecedented challenges—from shrinking budgets and declining enrollment to mounting public skepticism—the Chronicle of Higher Education (CHE) remains a key player in the academic landscape. Since its founding in 1966, CHE has evolved into more than just a news outlet; it is a complex knowledge business that provides employment to hundreds of journalists, editors, and professionals, while serving as an important information hub for higher education stakeholders.

In an era when many campus newspapers have shuttered and independent reporting has become scarce, CHE offers comprehensive coverage of policy shifts, labor disputes, campus culture, and academic research. Its newsroom employs writers and editors who specialize in the intricacies of higher education, providing analysis that is often essential for faculty, staff, and administrators trying to navigate rapid change.

Beyond journalism, CHE generates jobs in content marketing, event planning, data analytics, and consulting services targeted to university leaders. Through initiatives like Chronicle Intelligence, the organization supplies customized research, white papers, and executive education designed to help institutions manage enrollment, compliance, and strategic planning amid financial strain.

CHE also hosts conferences, webinars, and networking events, creating platforms where university administrators, policymakers, and vendors can exchange ideas and strategies. These gatherings not only generate revenue and jobs but foster a sense of community and shared problem-solving during turbulent times.

However, the Chronicle’s increasing involvement in sponsored content and consulting has raised important questions about its role. While it continues to provide valuable information and insight, it also serves as a marketing channel for vendors and a consultant to the very institutions it covers. This dual role complicates its editorial independence and shifts some focus toward solutions that emphasize branding, compliance, and managerial efficiency.

The promotional emails sent by CHE in mid-2025, for example, encouraged universities to “redesign research infrastructure” and tackle faculty burnout with new tools and processes, often linked to private vendors. These efforts highlight the Chronicle’s role in shaping how institutions respond to their challenges—but also reveal a tendency to prioritize market-friendly fixes over structural reforms.

Nevertheless, in a time of shrinking media coverage and growing complexity in higher education, the Chronicle remains a vital resource. Its ability to employ a dedicated staff of higher ed specialists and provide a steady flow of reporting and analysis is a significant contribution to the sector.

As colleges and universities continue to grapple with financial pressures, political conflicts, and social change, the Chronicle of Higher Education occupies a complex position: both a mirror reflecting higher education’s crises and a business offering pathways to adaptation and survival. Balancing these roles with editorial rigor and independence will be essential if CHE is to serve the broad range of voices and interests within American academia.


Sources:

Shaulis, Dahn. The College Meltdown series, Higher Education Inquirer
The Chronicle of Higher Education promotional emails, July 2025
Chronicle Intelligence product descriptions, chronicle.com
Bousquet, Marc. How the University Works: Higher Education and the Low-Wage Nation. NYU Press
Newfield, Christopher. The Great Mistake: How We Wrecked Public Universities and How We Can Fix Them
Slaughter, Sheila and Rhoades, Gary. Academic Capitalism and the New Economy. Johns Hopkins University Press

Faith vs. Geology: Pangaea and the Great Deluge Theory at Liberty University

In the early 20th century, German scientist Alfred Wegener introduced the idea of continental drift, proposing that Earth's continents were once joined in a massive supercontinent called Pangaea. Though initially dismissed, his theory gained traction in the 1960s with the emergence of plate tectonics—a unifying model that explains how Earth's outer shell is divided into moving plates. This theory, now a cornerstone of modern geology, posits that Pangaea began to break apart roughly 230 million years ago, eventually forming the continents we recognize today. The overwhelming evidence for this process includes matching fossils on different continents, corresponding rock formations, and patterns in ancient species distribution. Radiometric dating techniques support the conclusion that Earth is about 4.54 billion years old, a timescale that allows for the slow, natural processes responsible for shaping the planet.

In stark contrast, Liberty University's Center for Creation Studies offers an alternative interpretation of Earth’s history rooted in a literal reading of the Bible. Situated in the Rawlings School of Divinity’s Freedom Tower—the tallest building in Lynchburg, Virginia—the Center teaches students to understand science through the lens of Genesis. Its Great Deluge Theory, based on the biblical account of Noah's Flood, rejects the mainstream scientific consensus. Instead of accepting that Earth’s continents drifted apart over hundreds of millions of years, the Center asserts that many geological features, including fossil layers and sedimentary rock strata, were formed rapidly during a single global flood event just a few thousand years ago. Young Earth creationism, which underpins the curriculum, maintains that the planet is no older than 10,000 years, and that natural history can be fully explained through divine intervention.

The divergence between these views is more than a matter of interpretation—it reflects fundamentally different epistemologies. Plate tectonics is grounded in empirical research, the scientific method, and peer review. It invites scrutiny, thrives on testable hypotheses, and evolves in response to new evidence. In contrast, Liberty’s model begins with a predetermined conclusion: the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate in every detail. Evidence is selectively interpreted to fit this framework, and contradictory data—no matter how extensive—is either reinterpreted or dismissed. This approach aligns more closely with apologetics than with science.

While Liberty University positions its creationist program as a means to equip students to "contend for their faith," critics argue that it misrepresents scientific knowledge and undermines science education. By framing the Great Deluge as a viable scientific alternative to plate tectonics, the institution promotes a parallel academic universe in which faith-based doctrines masquerade as empirical conclusions. The implications go beyond the classroom. As Liberty-trained educators and policymakers enter the workforce, the divide between evidence-based science and theological worldviews has the potential to further erode public understanding of geology, biology, and climate science.

The tension between these two narratives—one driven by data and theory, the other by scripture and conviction—mirrors broader cultural and political divides in the United States. In this climate, Liberty University’s Great Deluge Theory stands not merely as a fringe belief but as part of an organized ideological project. It seeks to challenge the authority of secular science and replace it with a creationist worldview, reinforced by institutional power, strategic philanthropy, and media amplification through outlets like Fox News and Turning Point USA.

Pangaea remains a foundational concept in understanding Earth's deep past—a testament to scientific inquiry and intellectual perseverance. The Great Deluge Theory, by contrast, functions more as a religious counter-narrative, one that reveals the growing influence of Christian nationalism within certain sectors of U.S. higher education. At Liberty University, students are taught not only to question modern geology but to replace it with a model of the Earth shaped by divine catastrophe. In doing so, the institution asserts a theological vision of reality that stands in direct opposition to the scientific consensus.

This conflict raises urgent questions about the role of ideology in higher education and the future of scientific literacy in a society increasingly divided along epistemological lines.


Sources:

National Center for Science Education. “The Creationist Assault on Geology.” NCSE Reports.
https://ncse.ngo/creationist-assault-geology

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). “Geologic Time.”
https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/geologic-time

Wegener, Alfred. The Origin of Continents and Oceans. Translated edition, Dover Publications, 1966.

Liberty University. “Center for Creation Studies.”
https://www.liberty.edu/academics/creationstudies/

Liberty University Rawlings School of Divinity. “Freedom Tower Overview.”
https://www.liberty.edu/divinity/freedom-tower/

Numbers, Ronald L. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. Harvard University Press, 2006.

Scott, Eugenie C. Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction. University of California Press, 2009.

Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth. TalkOrigins Archive.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

Lisle, Jason. The Ultimate Proof of Creation. Master Books, 2009. (Representative of Liberty-style apologetics)