|
Friday, July 18, 2025
Interest charges will restart for borrowers in SAVE forbearance (Student Borrower Protection Center)
Trump Administration Freezes Education Funds to 23 States, Legal Challenges Follow
In a move that has sparked legal action from nearly half the country, the Trump administration has frozen more than $6 billion in education funds to 23 states and the District of Columbia. The decision, issued by the U.S. Department of Education in late June 2025, follows a broader pattern of halted federal support for state and local programs, many of which were previously protected by court rulings.
The funding pause is linked to the Trump administration's January 2025 memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Memo M-25-13), which directed federal agencies to withhold disbursements from thousands of grant and aid programs. The stated purpose was to align spending with the administration’s priorities, though the policy has been challenged as lacking legal authority. The memo was later rescinded, but its effects have continued through new administrative directives.
In this latest instance, the Department of Education cited a need to review Title II and Title IV programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), including programs for teacher development, after-school enrichment, and English language learners.
The decision disproportionately affected Democratic-led states, with California alone facing the loss of $939 million.
States impacted include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.
On June 30, attorneys general from those jurisdictions filed suit in Rhode Island, arguing that the Education Department lacks the authority to unilaterally withhold funds that Congress has already appropriated. They assert that the freeze violates both statutory obligations and constitutional principles, including the separation of powers. The lawsuit follows earlier court rulings from January and February in which judges issued temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions to stop the administration from freezing other categories of grants. Those cases were largely brought by Democracy Forward, a legal advocacy organization that has played a leading role in contesting the OMB memo.
Although the administration has defended the funding freeze as a necessary review of federal spending, courts have questioned the legality of such actions. In March, a federal court criticized the lack of statutory basis for the freezes, and Democracy Forward issued a detailed brief outlining the harm to nonprofit programs, environmental projects, and public services. That brief emphasized the breadth of affected programs and the legal overreach involved.
The broader legal battle continues. While some funding has been restored through court action, the Education Department’s freeze represents a new front in ongoing disputes between the Trump administration and state governments. Plaintiffs argue that withholding these funds sets a precedent that undermines established appropriations and legislative intent. More lawsuits are expected.
The Trump administration’s freeze on education funding to 23 states opens several legal and political paths, each with different implications depending on how courts and federal agencies proceed. Below are the most likely possibilities based on current legal precedent, federal authority, and political conditions:
Courts Overturn the Freeze, Funding Restored
The most immediate and probable outcome is that courts will order the Education Department to restore the frozen funds, as they did earlier this year with other parts of the federal grant freeze. Courts have already found that the administration lacked statutory authority to suspend programs that Congress explicitly funded. If this logic holds, the education freeze will likely be ruled unlawful and states will receive the funds—possibly with retroactive reimbursement for missed payments.
Partial Restoration, Continued Legal Conflict
The administration may attempt to restore only some of the funding—especially those programs that have garnered the most public or bipartisan support—while continuing to block others. In this scenario, the courts could issue narrow rulings or temporary injunctions that apply to specific funding streams. This would prolong litigation and administrative uncertainty, potentially pushing the issue into 2026 or the next presidential term.
Supreme Court Intervention
If the lower courts issue conflicting rulings or the Trump administration loses significant cases, the Justice Department may seek Supreme Court review. The Court could use this as an opportunity to clarify executive authority over grant disbursement. Depending on the composition of the Court and its interpretation of separation of powers, this could either curtail future executive control over federal spending—or affirm broader authority to “review” or condition funding.
Legislative Response
Congress, particularly if Democrats control at least one chamber in 2025-2026, could pass legislation to prohibit similar funding freezes in the future or require automatic disbursement of appropriated funds. However, any such legislation would likely face veto threats or require a veto-proof majority, making this a longer-term fix rather than a short-term remedy.
Further Administrative Retaliation or Expansion
If courts delay action or issue narrow rulings, the Trump administration could expand the use of funding freezes to other agencies or sectors, testing the limits of executive control. The precedent set by OMB Memo M-25-13 could be repurposed in other contexts—such as public health, housing, or infrastructure—creating broader instability in federal-state relations.
Political Mobilization and Fallout
States may respond by increasing pressure on Congress and federal courts while using the issue as a rallying point in the 2026 midterm elections. Public schools, educators, and parents may amplify the issue if it leads to job losses, school closures, or reduced services. The freeze could become a political liability for the Trump administration, especially in battleground states that rely heavily on federal education support.
In sum, the most likely near-term result is court-mandated restoration of the withheld funds. But depending on how aggressively the administration continues to test the boundaries of federal authority, the dispute could escalate into a broader constitutional and political conflict over the power to allocate and control federal funds.
Sources
Democracy Forward, “Initial Policy Memo on Federal Grant Freezes,” March 12, 2025.
CBS News, “Democratic states sue Trump administration over halted education funds,” July 1, 2025.
Reuters, “Trump asks US court to end judicial overreach, allow funding freezes,” February 11, 2025.
Wikipedia, “2025 United States federal government grant pause.”
The Daily Beast, “GOP Lawmakers Blast Trump Chief Russell Vought for Freezing Education Money,” July 2025.
The Guardian, “Nothing like this in American history: the crisis of Trump's assault on the rule of law,” March 9, 2025.
Cognitive Dissonance in Conservative Circles: Student Loans, Reproductive Control, and Elite Education
In the fractured landscape of American politics, few ideological camps require as much mental compartmentalization as the contemporary conservative movement—particularly on issues such as student loan forgiveness, reproductive control, and elite education. These contradictions are not incidental; they are foundational to a worldview that champions “freedom” and “responsibility” while selectively applying both.
Student Loan Forgiveness: Moral Hazard for the Working Class?
Conservatives have long framed student loan forgiveness as a dangerous “bailout” for the irresponsible. When the Biden administration announced broad relief for borrowers in 2022, Republican leaders rushed to block the effort, culminating in the Supreme Court’s rejection of the plan in Biden v. Nebraska (2023) [1]. Senator Mitch McConnell called the proposal “socialism,” and GOP-aligned media accused the administration of rewarding “woke” degrees in gender studies and art history.
Yet this outrage over debt relief was largely absent when it came to Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan forgiveness. According to data from ProPublica and the U.S. Small Business Administration, many Republican members of Congress, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Rep. Vern Buchanan, had hundreds of thousands—sometimes millions—of dollars in business loans forgiven under the program [2]. Donald Trump’s companies received over $2 million in PPP loans, much of it forgiven [3].
Meanwhile, millions of working- and middle-class borrowers remain trapped in debt from degrees that were oversold as gateways to stable careers. Many were students at for-profit institutions that have since faced lawsuits or federal scrutiny for misleading advertising and inflated job placement claims [4].
Reproductive Control: The Politics of "Limited" Government
One of the most glaring contradictions in conservative rhetoric is the demand for limited government—except when it comes to controlling women’s bodies. Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), Republican-led states have rushed to enact abortion bans. As of mid-2025, 14 states have near-total bans in effect, many with no exceptions for rape or incest [5].
While conservatives argue for “parental rights” in education and protest vaccine mandates as government overreach, they have no issue allowing the state to force pregnancy and childbirth. The very people championing “freedom” from mask mandates and climate regulations are often the first to demand criminal penalties for doctors who perform abortions.
This isn’t just hypocrisy—it reflects a selective application of liberty: economic freedom for corporations, religious freedom for evangelicals, but no bodily autonomy for pregnant women, particularly those who are poor or marginalized.
Elite Education: The Ivy League as Both Enemy and Badge of Honor
Conservative disdain for elite universities is both cultural and performative. Schools like Harvard, Yale, and Stanford are routinely criticized as leftist indoctrination centers. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, for instance, has targeted public university diversity programs and pushed for “anti-woke” education reforms [6].
And yet, the conservative establishment is deeply enmeshed in elite education. Four of the six conservative Supreme Court justices were educated at Harvard or Yale. The Federalist Society, a conservative legal powerhouse, thrives at these institutions. DeSantis himself holds degrees from Yale and Harvard Law.
Wealthy conservative families still pull strings to get their children into Ivy League schools, often through donations or legacy admissions. Meanwhile, conservative media outlets mock first-generation students or those from historically marginalized communities for seeking higher education in the first place. As working-class and rural conservatives are dissuaded from attending college, elite education becomes more exclusive—while still being used to confer legitimacy on conservative power brokers.
The Real Ideological Glue
These contradictions require cognitive dissonance, but they are sustained by a shared grievance narrative: that “real Americans” are being left behind by coastal elites, cultural change, and demographic shifts. In this framework, debt relief for a truck driver is socialism, but forgiveness for a car dealership owner is economic stimulus. Academic freedom is sacred for religious conservatives, but dangerous when exercised by liberal professors. Government intrusion is tyranny—unless it enforces traditional gender roles.
What binds these inconsistencies together is not logic but power. The goal is not to apply principles consistently, but to protect a hierarchy in which wealth, whiteness, patriarchy, and Christian nationalism remain dominant.
Until conservatives confront these contradictions—or acknowledge that their ideology serves different masters depending on context—they will continue to promote a politics of resentment that undermines both higher education and democracy itself.
Sources:
-
Supreme Court of the United States. Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U.S. ___ (2023). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_n6io.pdf
-
ProPublica. “Tracking PPP Loans.” https://projects.propublica.org/coronavirus/bailouts/
-
Forbes. “Trump Organization and PPP Loans: Over $2 Million Forgiven.” July 2021. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacheverson/2021/07/06/trump-organizations-ppp-loans-over-2-million-forgiven
-
U.S. Department of Education. “Borrower Defense to Repayment.” https://studentaid.gov/borrower-defense/
-
Guttmacher Institute. “State Bans on Abortion Throughout Pregnancy.” Updated May 2025. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-policies-later-abortions
-
The Chronicle of Higher Education. “DeSantis Signs Bills Overhauling Florida Higher Ed.” May 2023. https://www.chronicle.com/article/desantis-signs-bills-overhauling-florida-higher-ed
The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to investigate the ideological contradictions, systemic inequities, and political influence that define U.S. higher education—and its role in American life.
How Immigration Has Fueled the Rise of Trumpism—and Changed Higher Education
In the United States, immigration has long been framed as a symbol of national pride—a beacon for the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” But in recent decades, as demographic, economic, and cultural shifts have accelerated, immigration has also become a flashpoint for political backlash. That backlash has taken on a powerful form in Trumpism: a nationalist-populist movement steeped in nativist fear, economic resentment, and white grievance politics. What’s often missing in mainstream analysis is how higher education—both as a driver and a symbol of immigration—has become entangled in this struggle.
At the center of this complexity is a contradictory truth: while much of Trumpism is fueled by anti-immigrant rhetoric and fear of demographic change, some of its most visible leaders and financial backers are themselves immigrants or children of immigrants, particularly from India. In the elite zones of tech, business, and politics, conservative Indian Americans are shaping immigration policy, university priorities, and even culture war narratives in ways that reinforce the very Trumpist ideology they supposedly should oppose.
American higher education has undergone a transformation over the past four decades—from a public good to a privatized, competitive marketplace. As state funding dried up, institutions turned to other sources of revenue: tuition, corporate partnerships, real estate development, and international students. Colleges and universities—particularly large public research institutions and elite private schools—ramped up recruitment of foreign students who could pay full price, especially from China, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and increasingly, India.
Today, Indian nationals are the second-largest group of international students in the U.S., particularly in STEM fields and graduate programs. Their tuition dollars help subsidize faculty salaries, administrative bloat, and research labs. H-1B visa holders, many of them Indian engineers and tech workers, have become a cornerstone of the U.S. tech workforce—and a key component of university-sponsored visa pipelines. In many graduate programs, foreign students are the programs.
At the same time, working-class Americans—especially in rural areas and former manufacturing hubs—have watched colleges become unrecognizable. For many, the university has become a symbol not of opportunity but of exclusion: a place that speaks a foreign language (literally and culturally), employs foreign-born TAs, and caters to elite global interests while raising tuition and reducing services.
One of the most paradoxical developments in the Trumpist era is the rise of conservative Indian Americans as major players in business, politics, and education policy. Figures like Vivek Ramaswamy, a biotech entrepreneur and 2024 GOP presidential candidate, have become darlings of the MAGA movement, espousing anti-DEI rhetoric, rejecting multiculturalism, and calling for the dismantling of the administrative state—including large swaths of the Department of Education. Kash Patel, Ajit Pai, and others have served in prominent Trump administration roles, often pushing deregulation, aggressive nationalism, and the rollback of civil rights protections.
Many of these individuals are highly educated products of elite U.S. universities—Princeton, Harvard, Yale—who advocate for a vision of America rooted in "meritocracy," free markets, and Christian-coded traditional values. Their rise is no accident. They often come from upper-caste, upper-class families in India and align ideologically with India’s ruling Hindu nationalist party, the BJP. That ideology—Hindutva—is increasingly aligned with global authoritarian movements, including Trumpism, Putinism, and Zionist ethnonationalism.
In higher education, this conservative cohort supports crackdowns on campus protest, restrictions on Critical Race Theory, and the dismantling of diversity programs. Some even promote a two-tier immigration system: open pathways for high-skilled workers and university graduates like themselves, and closed doors for asylum seekers, refugees, and undocumented immigrants.
Trumpist Republicans—often with support from conservative immigrants—have increasingly turned higher education into a battleground in the culture wars. In red states, new legislation and executive orders have targeted DEI offices, faculty unions, and ethnic studies departments. They have moved to restrict international student programs, especially for students from China and the Middle East, while simultaneously undermining tenure protections and academic freedom. Crackdowns on campus protests, often under the guise of "free speech," have been used to suppress progressive voices and student organizing.
As faculty ranks have become more diverse—and more contingent—conservatives have fought to reassert traditional hierarchies, often by using foreign-born faculty and graduate students as a wedge. Critics of tenure and academic “liberalism” claim that universities are out of touch with American values and serve foreign interests. Meanwhile, the same institutions continue to capitalize on the global student market, building campuses in Dubai and Singapore while closing rural extension centers at home.
Trumpism is not just a reaction to immigration itself, but to who benefits from it. At the top are elite immigrants—often from privileged caste backgrounds in India or affluent families in China—who attend top-tier universities and enter high-income fields. Below them are millions of working-class Americans saddled with student loan debt, gig jobs, and eroded social status. And beneath them still are the invisible laborers of higher education: the adjuncts, food service workers, janitors, and maintenance crews—many of them immigrants without documentation or legal protections.
This stratification of labor is mirrored in the classroom. International students often receive better advising, housing, and visa support than low-income domestic students, particularly Black, Latino, and Native students. Colleges may invest in ESL services and global partnerships while cutting mental health counseling, rural outreach, and Pell-eligible student aid.
Immigration is not the cause of Trumpism—but it is the mirror in which many Americans see their own social decline. And higher education has played a central role in projecting that mirror. When universities prioritize international growth over local development, or when elite immigrants champion policies that punish the poor and undocumented, they unwittingly feed the very movement that seeks to close the gates behind them.
Trumpism, for all its contradictions, thrives on this resentment. It exploits the divisions between “model minorities” and “undeserving poor,” between elite institutions and everyday people. It turns the American university—from Berkeley to Ohio State—into a symbol of what has been lost, even as it pretends to offer a way forward.
Immigration and higher education are deeply interwoven in the American story. But as higher ed becomes increasingly globalized, privatized, and stratified, it risks alienating the very people it claims to serve. The rise of Trumpism is not just a rejection of immigrants—it is a rejection of an education system that many see as rigged, elitist, and complicit in their decline.
The challenge for those of us in higher education—and especially for immigrants who have benefitted from it—is to confront these contradictions honestly. We must rethink who higher education serves. We must recognize how caste, class, and color operate not only across borders but within them.
For the Higher Education Inquirer, this is not a call for scapegoating immigrants, but for deeper analysis. How did we arrive at a system where elite global mobility coexists with mass domestic precarity? And what would it look like to build a higher education system rooted in justice—not just for the few who arrive, but for the many who are left behind?
Elite Universities and Their Failure to Uphold International Law: A Crisis of Legitimacy
Elite U.S. universities have long touted their role as stewards of global justice, incubators of human rights doctrine, and thought leaders in international law. They house prestigious law schools, attract students from around the world, and produce judges, diplomats, and policymakers. Yet, these same institutions have increasingly turned a blind eye—or actively participated in—violations of international law, human rights abuses, and the erosion of legal norms at home and abroad.
Universities like Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Stanford, NYU, and Georgetown are global brands. Their law schools educate future presidents, Supreme Court justices, and CEOs. But when it comes to confronting real-time violations of international law—whether committed by the U.S. government or its allies—these institutions often retreat into silence, complicity, or even defense of the status quo.
Selective Outrage and Legal Amnesia
International law, including the Geneva Conventions and principles of the United Nations Charter, is supposed to guide nations in the prevention of war crimes, the treatment of civilians, and the right to self-determination. These principles are taught in law school lecture halls, debated in journals, and celebrated at graduation speeches. But when those same principles are tested in real-world scenarios—such as U.S. drone warfare, the occupation of Palestinian territories, or the extrajudicial imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay—most elite universities fail to take a public stance.
In fact, many of these institutions benefit materially from their silence. Faculty and administrators maintain close relationships with defense contractors, intelligence agencies, and multinational law firms representing authoritarian regimes and fossil fuel giants. Think tanks embedded within these universities routinely provide legal rationales for otherwise indefensible policies.
Case Studies in Complicity
Harvard Law School, whose alumni include presidents and Supreme Court justices, has been notably quiet about U.S. breaches of the Geneva Conventions in conflicts stretching from Iraq to Gaza. Harvard’s investments in defense contractors and its deference to powerful alumni networks reflect an institutional unwillingness to confront crimes committed by the U.S. or its allies.
Yale Law School, home of the influential “Yale School” of international law thought, has similarly struggled with moral clarity. Professors who once championed humanitarian intervention now rationalize indefinite detention and drone strikes, couching them in legal gray zones. Yale’s silence on Israeli settlements and civilian casualties in Gaza, for example, stands in contrast to its professed commitments to legal equity.
Columbia Law School, positioned in the heart of the global media capital, hosts programs in human rights and war crimes. Yet the university has faced internal protests over its refusal to divest from companies involved in surveillance, policing, and foreign occupation. Despite these internal challenges, the administration has largely dismissed demands to reassess its complicity.
Georgetown Law, with deep ties to U.S. foreign policy establishments, often operates more like an extension of Washington's power than a challenger to it. While its Center on National Security hosts high-level panels and publishes white papers, it rarely critiques systemic violations of international law committed by the U.S. or NATO partners.
The Shield of Academic Neutrality
When challenged, university leaders often invoke the idea of “academic neutrality” or “institutional independence” to avoid taking positions. But neutrality in the face of injustice is not a virtue—it’s a form of complicity. As legal philosopher Martti Koskenniemi has argued, international law is only as powerful as the political will behind it. That will is shaped in part by elite academic institutions, which lend legitimacy—or provide cover—to state actors.
The Silence on Gaza and Genocide
Perhaps the most glaring recent example is the mass death and destruction in Gaza. Despite mounting allegations of war crimes and even genocide by international legal scholars and UN officials, most elite universities have failed to issue even symbolic statements of concern. Law school deans who routinely opine on Supreme Court rulings and domestic civil rights have stayed quiet, likely fearing backlash from donors, trustees, and political pressure groups.
Student groups and faculty have filled the moral vacuum—often at great personal and professional risk. At Columbia, Harvard, and Stanford, students protesting university complicity have faced suspensions, smear campaigns, and law enforcement crackdowns. Whistleblowing professors have been marginalized, and demands for ethical divestment have been stonewalled.
A Crisis of Legitimacy
This failure of moral and legal leadership reveals a deeper legitimacy crisis within U.S. higher education. If institutions that claim to produce the world’s legal elite cannot confront state-sanctioned crimes or uphold the most basic tenets of the international legal system, then what purpose do they serve—other than to reproduce power and shield the powerful?
Until elite universities and their law schools are willing to challenge the legal fictions that justify war, occupation, and systemic inequality, they will remain complicit in the erosion of the very legal norms they claim to champion. The world is watching—and so are their students.
Sources:
-
Harvard Law Review, Silence and Complicity: Legal Academia and the War on Terror, Vol. 137 (2024)
-
Columbia Spectator, “Protests and Divestment Demands: Columbia’s Reckoning with Its Global Ties” (2023)
-
The Intercept, “Law Schools and the Legalization of Empire” (2022)
-
United Nations Human Rights Council Reports on the Situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (2023–2025)
-
Center for Constitutional Rights, Guantánamo and the Failure of Legal Institutions (2023)
Thursday, July 17, 2025
Organization of Educational Historians National Conference, September 26-27th Online
Harvard's Proposed Conservative Center Marks a Return to Exclusionary Tradition By the Higher Education Inquirer
Harvard University is considering establishing a Center for Conservative Scholarship within its Faculty of Arts and Sciences. The university claims the project would support “viewpoint diversity” and academic inquiry from underrepresented political perspectives. Administrators have emphasized that the center “will not be partisan.”
The proposal comes in the context of increasing political pressure on elite universities. Former President Donald Trump and his allies have accused institutions like Harvard of promoting liberal ideology and excluding conservative voices. House Republicans have held hearings aimed at reshaping the priorities of higher education, using allegations of bias and antisemitism as a lever to call for structural changes, including the defunding of diversity initiatives.
Harvard’s proposed center appears to be a direct response to this pressure. University officials have reportedly been in discussions with wealthy donors who support conservative causes. While Harvard frames the project as an academic initiative, the timing and targeting of potential funders suggest political motives behind the effort.
This proposal is not unprecedented. Other elite institutions have created similar centers, often under the justification of broadening ideological perspectives. In practice, such centers have served to create space for views already supported by influential donor networks and conservative media.
More significantly, the center fits within a longer institutional pattern. For most of its history, Harvard served a narrow demographic—wealthy white men from elite backgrounds. The university excluded women, Black Americans, working-class people, and immigrants well into the 20th century. Conservative thought, particularly when tied to economic and racial hierarchy, was dominant and rarely questioned.
Rather than a new chapter, the proposed center may reflect a return to earlier patterns of influence. Today, conservative donors—many of whom also fund legal advocacy groups and policy think tanks—are in a position to shape academic institutions not through ideas but through financial leverage.
There is little evidence that conservative scholarship is being systematically excluded from American universities. While faculty in many disciplines lean liberal, this is not the result of an explicit hiring agenda. Research shows that students are exposed to a range of perspectives, particularly in economics, political science, and law. The idea that conservative ideas are silenced is not supported by peer-reviewed studies or hiring data.
What is increasingly common, however, is the influence of politically motivated funding on university governance. Legislators in several states have restricted curriculum content, defunded departments, and threatened accreditation. Harvard’s proposed center may reflect a similar dynamic—an effort to preempt further political and financial pressure by creating a new platform for specific ideological interests.
If the center is established, it will likely be funded by donors whose broader goal is to influence national politics through the academy. Whether it produces scholarship or political messaging will depend on the leadership structure, funding transparency, and commitment to academic standards.
The university’s long history of aligning with dominant power structures raises legitimate questions. The framing of this center as an effort to support diversity of thought obscures the role of race, class, and capital in determining which voices receive institutional support.
Sources:
-
The Wall Street Journal, “Harvard Explores New Center for Conservative Scholarship Amid Trump Attacks”
-
The Harvard Crimson, faculty and administrative reporting
-
AAUP Reports on Academic Freedom and Donor Influence
-
Geiger, Roger. The History of American Higher Education
For continued reporting on political influence and structural inequality in American higher education, follow the Higher Education Inquirer.
The Enshitification of Higher Education in the United States
Cory Doctorow’s theory of enshitification—originally coined to describe how digital platforms decay over time—perfectly captures the grim evolution of U.S. higher education. Institutions that once positioned themselves as public goods now exist primarily to sustain themselves, extracting revenue, prestige, and labor at the expense of students, faculty, and the broader public.
In the post–World War II era, higher education in the United States was broadly seen as a driver of social mobility, economic growth, and democratic citizenship. The GI Bill and substantial state funding opened college doors to millions. Tuition at public institutions was minimal or nonexistent. Academic freedom, faculty governance, and research for the common good were foundational ideals.
By the 1980s, neoliberal policies began to reshape the higher education landscape. Public disinvestment led institutions to rely more heavily on tuition, philanthropy, corporate partnerships, and student debt. Universities became more bureaucratic and brand-conscious. Students were reframed as consumers, and education as a commodity. Faculty positions gave way to underpaid adjunct labor, and Online Program Managers like 2U, Academic Partnerships (aka Risepoint) and Kaplan emerged to monetize digital learning. Marketing budgets ballooned. Classrooms and research labs became secondary to enrollment targets and revenue generation.
A 2019 Higher Education Inquirer report revealed how elite universities joined the downward spiral. Institutions like Harvard, Yale, and USC outsourced online graduate programs to 2U, employing aggressive recruitment tactics that resembled those of discredited for-profit colleges. Applicants were encouraged to take on excessive debt for degrees with uncertain returns. Whistleblowers likened it to fraud-by-phone—evidence that even the most prestigious universities were embracing an extractive model.
Doctoral education offers a deeper glimpse into how enshitification has hollowed out academia. Sold as a noble pursuit of truth and a path to secure academic employment, the Ph.D. has become, for many, a journey into economic instability, psychological distress, and underemployment. Only a small percentage of doctoral students land tenure-track jobs. Graduate schools continue to admit far more students than they can responsibly support, while providing little preparation for careers outside academia. Mentorship is often lacking, and financial support is frequently inadequate. Many graduate students rely on food pantries, defer medical care, or take on gig work just to survive. Meanwhile, universities benefit from their labor in teaching and research.
International graduate students face even steeper challenges. Promised opportunity, they instead encounter a saturated job market, low wages, and immigration precarity. Their labor props up U.S. research and rankings, but their long-term prospects are often bleak.
The rise of career-transition consultants—like Cheeky Scientist and The Professor Is In—has become a booming cottage industry, a byproduct of the failed academic job pipeline. For most Ph.D.s, what was once considered “alternative academia” is now the only path forward.
Financial hardship compounds the crisis. Graduate stipends in many programs are far below local living wages, especially in high-cost cities like San Francisco, Boston, or New York. Few programs provide retirement benefits or financial literacy resources. The financial toll of earning a doctorate is often hidden until students are years deep into their programs—and years behind in wealth accumulation.
Meanwhile, university medical centers—often affiliated with elite institutions—offer a parallel example of institutional enshitification. These hospitals have long histories of exploitation, particularly of poor and minority patients. Even today, these facilities prioritize affluent patients and donors, while relying on precariously employed staff and treating marginalized communities as research subjects. The disparities are systematic and ongoing. The rhetoric of innovation and healing masks a legacy of racial injustice and extractive labor practices.
Legacy admissions further entrench inequality. While race-conscious admissions have been rolled back, legacy preferences remain largely untouched. They serve to maintain elite networks, ensuring that wealth and access remain intergenerational. These policies not only contradict the rhetoric of meritocracy but also deepen structural inequities in the name of tradition.
Today, higher education serves itself. Institutions protect billion-dollar endowments, award executive salaries in the millions, expand sports programs and real estate portfolios, and depend on underpaid faculty and indebted students. Campuses are rife with inequality, surveillance of student protest, and performative gestures of inclusion, even as DEI initiatives are gutted by state governments or internal austerity.
The consequences are clear. Enrollment is declining. Campuses are closing. Faculty are being laid off. Public trust is eroding. And even elite institutions are feeling the strain. Doctorow’s theory suggests that once a system has fully enshittified, collapse becomes inevitable. The College Meltdown is not hypothetical—it’s here.
And yet, collapse can be a beginning. Higher education must be radically reimagined: public investment, tuition-free education, student debt relief, labor protections, honest admissions policies, and genuine democratic governance. The alternative is more of the same: a system that costs more, delivers less, and cannibalizes its future to feed its prestige economy.
Selected Sources
Caterine, Christopher L. Leaving Academia: A Practical Guide. Princeton University Press, 2020.
Cassuto, Leonard. The Graduate School Mess: What Caused It and How We Can Fix It. Harvard University Press, 2015.
Kelsky, Karen. The Professor Is In: The Essential Guide to Turning Your Ph.D. into a Job. Three Rivers Press, 2015.
Roberts, Emily. Personal Finance for Ph.D.s. https://www.pfforphds.com
Shaulis, Dahn. “2U Expands College Meltdown to Elite Universities.” Higher Education Inquirer, Oct. 4, 2019. https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2019/10/college-meltdown-expands-to-elite.html
Shaulis, Dahn. “The Dark Legacy of Elite University Medical Centers.” Higher Education Inquirer, Mar. 13, 2025. https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2025/03/the-dark-legacy-of-elite-university.html
Doctorow, Cory. “TikTok's Enshittification.” Pluralistic.net, Jan. 21, 2023. https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/
American Association of University Professors. Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, 2023. https://www.aaup.org
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. Current Term Enrollment Estimates, 2024. https://nscresearchcenter.org
Newfield, Christopher. The Great Mistake: How We Wrecked Public Universities and How We Can Fix Them. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016.
Goldrick-Rab, Sara. Paying the Price: College Costs, Financial Aid, and the Betrayal of the American Dream. University of Chicago Press, 2016.
Roth, Gary. The Educated Underclass: Students and the Promise of Social Mobility. Pluto Press, 2019.
Teen Vogue. “The Movement Against Legacy Admissions.” Jan. 2, 2025. https://www.teenvogue.com/story/movement-against-legacy-admissions
The Guardian. “‘Affirmative Action for the Privileged’: Why Democrats Are Fighting Legacy Admissions.” Aug. 11, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/aug/11/college-legacy-admissions-affirmative-action-democrats
US Higher Education and the Russian Threat
In the shadow of escalating global tensions and an increasingly multipolar world, the U.S. national security apparatus is quietly reassessing risks that extend far beyond the battlefield. One such risk, largely unspoken in polite discourse, is the potential threat posed by some Russian immigrants to the United States—particularly those whose loyalties may lie with Vladimir Putin’s regime or who have deep ties to oligarchic wealth and intelligence networks.
Epstein, Donald Trump and Sexual Blackmail Networks w/ Nick Bryant (The Chris Hedges Report)
Wednesday, July 16, 2025
How Higher Education Has Made America’s Caste System Worse
Higher education in the United States has long been marketed as the great equalizer—a system where hard work and talent supposedly translate into opportunity. But over the last four decades, it has increasingly reinforced and legitimized an American caste system. Through elite gatekeeping, rising tuition, unsustainable student debt, and the erosion of public support, higher education has helped harden economic class divisions, limit social mobility, and deepen inequality across racial and geographic lines.
The backdrop to this shift is a broader trend toward inequality in American society. The U.S. Gini Index—a measure of income inequality where 0 is perfect equality and 1 is maximum inequality—rose from 0.403 in 1980 to 0.494 in 2022, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. This ranks the United States among the most unequal of advanced economies. During this same period, college tuition increased by more than 1,200%—far outpacing both inflation and wage growth. Real wages for most Americans have remained stagnant since the late 1970s, while education has become more expensive and less accessible, especially for low- and middle-income families.
Elite universities have played a critical role in this transformation. Institutions such as Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and Columbia admit more students from families in the top 1% of the income distribution than from the bottom 60% combined, according to research by economists Raj Chetty and colleagues at Opportunity Insights. Legacy admissions, donor preferences, and access to elite extracurricular activities and expensive test prep services give wealthier applicants clear advantages. Despite growing awareness of these disparities, the gates to elite education remain closed to most Americans. In 2023, the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action policies, further limiting access for underrepresented students of color.
Public colleges and universities, once affordable vehicles for upward mobility, have also become less accessible and more commercialized. State disinvestment in public higher education has been dramatic. Between 1980 and 2020, state funding per student declined by nearly 20% in inflation-adjusted dollars. To make up the shortfall, public universities increased tuition and fees, shifted toward out-of-state and international students who pay more, and invested in revenue-generating activities like athletics, real estate, and research partnerships with private industry. Flagship universities have increasingly mimicked elite privates, while regional public universities—serving the most vulnerable populations—have been neglected, consolidated, or closed.
For-profit colleges, often owned by private equity firms, have targeted low-income, first-generation, and non-traditional students, promising quick credentials and job placement. In reality, many of these institutions deliver poor outcomes, high dropout rates, and outsized debt burdens. According to the U.S. Department of Education, students at for-profit institutions are twice as likely to default on their loans compared to those at public colleges.
The student loan crisis is a defining feature of this caste-like system. Total student loan debt in the U.S. surpassed $1.7 trillion in 2023, with more than 45 million Americans carrying loans. Black borrowers, in particular, face disproportionate burdens. Data from the Brookings Institution show that Black graduates owe an average of $25,000 more than white graduates four years after graduation, due in part to differences in generational wealth and post-college income. Many borrowers spend decades in repayment or fall into default, resulting in ruined credit, wage garnishment, and loss of social mobility.
Meanwhile, the internal labor structure of higher education mirrors the broader erosion of the middle class. Since the 1970s, the percentage of faculty in tenure-track positions has declined from roughly 70% to under 30%. Today, more than 70% of college instructors are contingent workers—adjuncts or lecturers without job security, benefits, or a livable wage. Many earn less than $3,500 per course, forcing them to string together multiple jobs or rely on public assistance. The very institutions that promote education as the path to professional stability are exploiting educated workers at scale.
Credential inflation has also contributed to the caste structure. Jobs that once required a high school diploma now demand a bachelor’s degree, while others that once required a bachelor's now demand a master's or doctorate. This escalation has not always come with higher pay or better conditions but has added years of unpaid or underpaid labor, especially in fields like education, social work, and academia. As employers outsource training responsibilities to colleges, individuals are expected to invest more in credentials—often at their own expense—just to remain competitive.
Cultural narratives of meritocracy continue to legitimize these outcomes. College is still portrayed as a personal investment and a moral obligation—despite clear evidence that structural inequality determines who can afford to attend, who can complete a degree, and who can leverage it into economic stability. The myth that higher education is a universal equalizer serves to obscure how deeply stratified the system has become.
Higher education could be a force for economic justice and democratic renewal. But as it currently functions, it serves as a sorting mechanism that reproduces existing hierarchies. Elite institutions credential the ruling class. Public universities ration opportunity through rising costs. For-profit schools prey on the vulnerable. And the debt system punishes those who try to improve their circumstances through education.
Unless the system is restructured—through robust public funding, tuition-free options, large-scale debt relief, labor protections, and a renewed commitment to equity—higher education will continue to solidify America's caste system rather than dismantle it.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (Gini Index), U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Opportunity Insights, Brookings Institution, Institute for Higher Education Policy, The Century Foundation, “The Merit Myth” by Anthony Carnevale et al., “The Debt Trap” by Josh Mitchell
The Reality of Higher Ed Fraud in 2025
"Fraudsters are like cockroaches"--Anonymous higher education businessman
Fraudsters are like cockroaches: persistent, hard to eliminate, and always scurrying just beneath the surface. And like cockroaches, when you see one, you can assume many more are hidden from view. In the vast, sprawling ecosystem of US higher education—a multi-trillion-dollar industry built on trust, hope, and credentials—fraud has been a lurking presence for more than a century. From diploma mills to for-profit scams, grade inflation to financial aid abuse, deceit has found fertile ground wherever oversight is weak and incentives are perverse.