From EdTech Darling to Distressed Asset — A Post-Bankruptcy Autopsy

The fall of 2U, once a poster child of education technology innovation, is a cautionary tale for investors, policymakers, and students alike. After riding a wave of optimism in the online education bo-m, the company declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy in mid-2024, emerging weeks later as a privately held firm now controlled by distressed asset investors. While many of the company’s top executives have been replaced or reshuffled, the story is far from over—and the damage done to public trust in university–edtech partnerships remains.

Founded in 2008 and based in Lanham, Maryland, 2U positioned itself as a premier Online Program Manager (OPM), contracting with top-tier universities to run their online degree programs. By 2019, the company was a billion-dollar operation, boasting partnerships with USC, Georgetown, and Yale. But cracks began to show as questions about cost, transparency, student outcomes, and aggressive recruiting practices became harder to ignore.

By 2023, 2U was bleeding cash, facing multiple lawsuits, regulatory scrutiny, and plummeting investor confidence. The final blow came when the company defaulted on over $450 million in debt. In July 2024, 2U entered and quickly exited Chapter 11 bankruptcy through a pre-packaged deal. The result: 2U is now a private company, with ownership largely transferred to distressed debt investors—Mudrick Capital Management, Greenvale Capital, and Bayside Capital (an affiliate of H.I.G. Capital).

These firms are known not for a commitment to education but for expertise in distressed asset recovery and aggressive restructuring. Mudrick Capital, for instance, made headlines for its role in the AMC “meme stock” frenzy. Bayside Capital has long operated in the shadows of high-risk debt markets, favoring fast-moving deals in stressed financial environments. Greenvale Capital, a lesser-known but analytically rigorous hedge fund, rounds out the group.

Following the takeover, 2U appointed Kees Bol as its new CEO and installed Brian Napack—a veteran of the education sector and former CEO of Wiley—as Executive Chairman of the Board. Whether this new leadership can turn 2U around remains unclear. For now, they are signaling a pivot toward non-degree credentials and corporate upskilling markets, away from costly master’s degree programs that saddled students with debt and poor returns.

But 2U’s shift is not merely a business story. Its implosion exposes broader flaws in the higher education–tech ecosystem. OPMs like 2U operated in a legal gray area, exploiting Title IV federal student aid without direct regulatory oversight. Critics, including lawmakers and consumer protection advocates, argue that these firms served more as enrollment mills than academic partners. The Department of Education’s efforts to rein in the industry through “bundled services” guidance and potential Gainful Employment rules came too late to prevent massive financial fallout.

The universities that partnered with 2U are also complicit. Many ceded control of curriculum design, admissions, and marketing to a for-profit company in exchange for a share of the revenue. In doing so, they risked their reputations—and in some cases, knowingly funneled students into programs with dubious value. These relationships, many of which are still active, should now be reexamined in light of 2U’s restructuring.

Students who enrolled in these programs, often with the promise of career advancement and elite credentials, are left with debt and degrees that may not deliver the expected return. As 2U retools its strategy under the control of financial firms, it's unclear whether these students—or future ones—will benefit at all.

Meanwhile, the venture capitalists and financial engineers behind the scenes have already cashed out or secured their positions in the restructured entity. Like so many stories in the for-profit education sector, 2U’s downfall was not just predictable—it was profitable for those who knew how to play the system.

Have you worked with 2U—or been affected by it?

The Higher Education Inquirer is continuing its investigation into 2U and the wider online program management (OPM) industry. If you are a former or current employee of 2U, Trilogy Education, EdX, or a related company, a university staff or faculty member who collaborated with 2U, a student or graduate of a 2U-powered program, a marketing contractor, admissions specialist, or vendor affiliated with 2U or its partners, or someone with knowledge of the company's restructuring or operations—we want to hear from you.

We are especially interested in experiences involving enrollment pressure tactics, misleading marketing, internal operations, financial mismanagement, compliance concerns, and revenue-sharing agreements with universities. If 2U’s collapse or restructuring affected your job, finances, or education, your story matters.

You can share information confidentially by contacting us at gmcghee@aya.yale.edu. Anonymity will be protected upon request.

Defunding Public Media and the Dumbing Down of the United States of America

In the summer of 2025, as political battles raged over spending priorities, the Trump administration quietly moved to strip federal funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which helps sustain PBS and NPR. The justification? Cost-cutting and “eliminating liberal bias.” But beneath the surface, the defunding of public media is part of a much larger and more troubling trend: the deliberate degradation of public knowledge and critical thinking in the United States.

While elites send their children to private schools and consume high-quality journalism behind paywalls, the American public is being left with infotainment, partisan outrage, and algorithm-driven misinformation. Public broadcasting—though imperfect—has long served as one of the few accessible sources of educational content, cultural programming, and fact-based journalism available to all. Its erosion is a symbolic and practical blow to civic literacy in a country already struggling with basic educational attainment.

A Nation Struggling with Literacy

According to the U.S. Department of Education and the National Center for Education Statistics, only about half of U.S. adults read above a sixth-grade level. The OECD’s Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) has also found that nearly 20% of U.S. adults perform at or below the lowest levels of literacy and numeracy, placing the U.S. behind many other developed countries in basic skills.

A 2020 Gallup report estimated that low levels of literacy cost the U.S. economy more than $200 billion annually in lost productivity, wages, and tax revenue. Yet funding for adult education, public libraries, and public broadcasting continues to shrink—even as disinformation spreads faster and wider.

Who Benefits from a Dumbed-Down Public?

As the Higher Education Inquirer has documented in its reporting on for-profit education, digital credential mills, and the student debt crisis, the American knowledge economy is deeply stratified. Access to high-quality information, critical discourse, and even basic educational tools is increasingly a function of wealth and geography.

The defunding of NPR and PBS aligns with other coordinated efforts to dismantle public goods: the closure of public libraries, the corporatization of public universities, and the privatization of K-12 education through charter networks and voucher programs. These moves benefit private equity, edtech entrepreneurs, and ideological actors who profit when the public cannot think critically or access reliable information.

Far-right activists have long targeted public media as an enemy, not because it is radical, but because it provides a baseline of factual reporting that challenges misinformation and offers cultural programming outside the commercial marketplace. As trust in mainstream institutions declines, the vacuum is filled by influencers, conspiracy theorists, and partisan content creators—many of whom now dominate online spaces where public discourse once lived.

The Role of Public Media in Civic Life

PBS and NPR have historically played an important role in fostering civic engagement and lifelong learning. Shows like Frontline, Nova, NewsHour, and Morning Edition offered context and depth not found on commercial networks. Educational programming for children, such as Sesame Street and Arthur, supported early literacy and social development, particularly for families without access to high-quality preschool.

The attack on public media is, therefore, not just about money. It is about erasing a platform for critical inquiry and shared public knowledge. In many rural communities, public radio is still the most consistent, nonpartisan news source. Removing federal support won’t just weaken these outlets—it may silence them entirely.

A Broader War on Intelligence

This latest move fits within a broader campaign to delegitimize expertise, suppress academic freedom, and dismantle public education. As we reported in “Socrates in Space: University of Austin and the Billionaire Pipeline,” there’s a concerted effort by political operatives and billionaires to replace traditional knowledge institutions with ideologically-aligned alternatives.

The result is a country in which millions lack the literacy to read a ballot initiative, interpret a news article, or understand a contract—and where those with access to capital can shape the discourse while the rest are locked out.

In this environment, public media is not simply an institution—it is a last line of defense.

Consolidating Informational Power

The defunding of PBS and NPR is not an isolated event. It is part of a systemic effort to dismantle civic infrastructure, suppress critical thinking, and consolidate informational power in the hands of the wealthy and the politically connected. In a country where half the adult population cannot read beyond a sixth-grade level, eliminating access to high-quality, accessible programming is not just negligent—it is a form of engineered ignorance.

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to investigate the erosion of public knowledge and its consequences. If you have stories about media access, censorship, or attacks on public institutions in your community, contact us at gmcghee@aya.yale.edu..

Sources:

• U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), “Adult Literacy in the United States,” 2020

• OECD, “Skills Matter: Further Results from the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC),” 2016

• Gallup, “Assessing the Economic Gains of Eradicating Illiteracy Nationally and Regionally in the United States,” 2020

• Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), Budget History

• Pew Research Center, “News Consumption Across Social Media in 2023”

• Higher Education Inquirer, “Socrates in Space: University of Austin and the Billionaire Pipeline,” 2024

• Higher Education Inquirer, “The 2U-PAC Nexus,” 2025

Trump Signs Crypto Bill: A Gateway to Corruption and Financial Oppression

On July 17, 2025, Donald Trump signed into law the “American Digital Freedom Act,” a sweeping piece of legislation that federalizes and deregulates cryptocurrency markets in the United States. While hailed by supporters as a victory for innovation and financial autonomy, the new law is more accurately understood as a major victory for crypto billionaires, libertarian think tanks, and political operatives seeking to reshape American financial life with minimal public accountability.

This bill, which strips oversight powers from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and restricts consumer protections, was heavily influenced by the cryptocurrency lobby. It legitimizes risky, unregulated financial products, undermines state enforcement power, and further embeds private power into public infrastructure. Far from delivering financial freedom to everyday Americans, this law opens the door to unprecedented corruption and control, continuing a pattern long warned about in the pages of the Higher Education Inquirer.

Echoes of Student Debt, EdTech Fraud, and Neoliberal Capture

In our May 2025 article, "How the New Cryptocurrency Bill Could Open the Door to Corruption and Control," we warned that the crypto bill was less about democratizing finance and more about creating new extractive markets. As with the for-profit college industry, the gigification of academic labor, and the student loan crisis, the crypto sector markets itself to the financially desperate, the underemployed, and the debt-burdened.

Cryptocurrency platforms promise opportunity and empowerment, just as subprime for-profit colleges did during the early 2000s. Instead, they profit from volatility, speculation, and financial illiteracy. The collapse of companies like FTX and the unraveling of various "blockchain for education" experiments—like those pitched by Minerva, 2U, and Lambda School—should have served as a warning. Instead, the American Digital Freedom Act enshrines their business models into law.

From Financial Risk to Political Weapon

While proponents describe the law as a pro-innovation framework, the political context suggests otherwise. The crypto bill was pushed through by some of the same operatives behind efforts to weaken the Department of Education, dismantle Title IX protections, and privatize public universities. The legislation also dovetails with Trump-aligned plans to create “digital citizenship” systems linked to financial identity—a move critics argue could be used to surveil and suppress dissent.

By reducing AML (Anti-Money Laundering) standards and weakening Know Your Customer (KYC) rules, the new law also makes it easier for dark money to enter U.S. elections and political campaigns. The line between crypto lobbying, national security risks, and voter manipulation is already blurred—and this legislation will only accelerate the trend.

As the Higher Education Inquirer, there is a growing convergence of tech capital, deregulated finance, and political ideology that promotes “freedom” while gutting accountability. The crypto bill fits squarely within this pattern.

Targeting the Dispossessed

The communities that will bear the brunt of the consequences are already stretched thin: working-class students drowning in loan debt, unemployed graduates with useless credentials, and gig workers living paycheck to paycheck. These are the same groups now being told that speculative crypto investments are their only shot at economic mobility.

It’s no surprise that crypto apps are targeting community college students, veterans, and underbanked populations with gamified interfaces and referral incentives—echoing the same predatory logic as diploma mills. Instead of building generational wealth, these platforms often lock users into a new form of digital serfdom, driven by data extraction and monetized hype.

The Long Game of Financialized Authoritarianism

The Higher Education Inquirer has consistently highlighted the dangers of unregulated private capital colonizing public institutions. Whether through for-profit colleges, hollow credential marketplaces, or now unregulated crypto markets, the pattern is the same: promise empowerment, deliver exploitation, and consolidate power.

The crypto bill signed by Trump is not an end—it is a gateway. A gateway to a political economy where finance, tech, and politics are indistinguishable, and where the price of dissent may be counted not only in speech, but in digital wallets and blockchain-based reputations.

We will continue reporting on the consequences of this legislation—especially where it intersects with higher education, student debt, and the erosion of democratic infrastructure. If you’ve been affected by crypto scams in academic settings or targeted by blockchain-backed “innovation” schemes, we want to hear from you.

Sources:

• “How the New Cryptocurrency Bill Could Open the Door to Corruption and Control,” Higher Education Inquirer, May 2025

• “Socrates in Space: University of Austin and the Billionaire Pipeline,” Higher Education Inquirer, July 2024

• U.S. Congressional Record, July 17, 2025

• CoinDesk, “Trump Signs Historic Crypto Deregulation Bill,” July 2025

• Public Citizen, “Crypto Lobby’s Push to Rewrite U.S. Law,” June 2025

• SEC Chair Gary Gensler’s Remarks, April–June 2025

• Financial Times, “Digital Authoritarianism and Financial Surveillance,” May 2025

Degrees of Distraction: Clickbait Culture in Higher Education Media

A growing number of mass-market media outlets like MSN are flooding social media and news aggregators with listicle-style content that oversimplifies the complex realities of higher education. These articles—such as “These 16 College Majors Lead Straight to Debt and Disappointment,” “How Student Loan Debt Can Ruin Your Life,” and “The 10 Most Difficult College Degrees & The 10 Easiest”—traffic in anxiety and fear. They promise clarity but offer only distraction, substituting nuanced analysis with sensational headlines and shallow comparisons.

The underlying message of these articles is rarely subtle: if you pick the wrong major or underestimate the burden of student loans, you’re doomed. The reader is often shown a carousel of exaggerated personal stories, stripped of context and reduced to cautionary tales. At the same time, the articles ignore the broader, systemic forces that have made higher education more financially perilous for millions of Americans.

By presenting debt as a purely personal failure rather than a predictable outcome of policy decisions, financial deregulation, and corporate capture, these pieces shift the blame away from institutions and onto individual students. They rarely address how college costs have skyrocketed while wages have stagnated, how the Department of Education has been gutted and restructured, or how student loan servicing companies routinely mislead borrowers with little accountability. They don’t examine the role of for-profit schools, accreditors, or real estate developers profiting from campus-adjacent housing. Nor do they challenge the myth that higher education is a guaranteed path to upward mobility.

Instead, they pit majors against each other. Humanities, social sciences, and creative arts are portrayed as reckless luxuries. STEM majors are celebrated as pragmatic, even though the return on investment depends heavily on where one studies, who one knows, and whether one can persist in often toxic or exclusionary academic cultures. Even the categorization of “difficult” versus “easy” majors is misleading, based more on GPA averages than actual workload, long-term intellectual challenge, or student engagement.

This kind of journalism contributes to a growing anti-intellectualism. It discourages students from following their passions or pursuing degrees that may not yield high financial returns but are essential to a functioning democracy. It feeds a cultural narrative that sees college as a consumer transaction rather than a public good. The result is a media ecosystem where student fear becomes a revenue stream, and informed decision-making is replaced by click-through bait.

These articles also crowd out deeper investigations. Where is the coverage of ongoing borrower defense claims against predatory schools? Where is the sustained attention to the impact of private equity in education? Where is the reporting on how schools game federal regulations like Gainful Employment or misuse nonprofit status to enrich executives? Instead of informing readers about these realities, MSN and similar platforms serve up recycled headlines designed to generate outrage, not insight.

The Higher Education Inquirer calls for a higher standard of reporting—one that holds power to account and equips students with more than slogans and salary charts. Young people navigating college in 2025 are not fools or naive dreamers. They are facing an increasingly rigged game, one that demands critical thinking, not consumer shaming. They deserve journalism that investigates, not indoctrinates.

Sources
MSN: “These 16 College Majors Lead Straight to Debt and Disappointment”
MSN: “How Student Loan Debt Can Ruin Your Life”
MSN: “The 10 Most Difficult College Degrees & The 10 Easiest”
National Center for Education Statistics
The Institute for College Access and Success
The Century Foundation
Department of Education FOIA archives
Higher Education Inquirer investigations on student loan fraud and federal oversight

What the Numbers Say About Anxiety in America

Anxiety is a word we hear a lot these days—online, in classrooms, at the doctor’s office, and in everyday conversations. But how many people actually experience it? And how much has it changed over time?

If you’re between the ages of 16 and 35, chances are you or someone close to you has felt overwhelmed, tense, or stuck in worry. Some people call it stress. Some call it burnout. Others use clinical terms like Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Regardless of the label, it’s clear that anxiety is more visible—and more talked about—than ever before.

So what do the facts say?

Different surveys and studies give different numbers for how many people in the United States are dealing with anxiety. That’s because they don’t all define or measure anxiety in the same way. Some studies ask people how they’ve been feeling lately—whether they’ve felt nervous, on edge, or unable to control worrying. Others ask if someone has ever been diagnosed by a doctor or therapist with an anxiety disorder.

In 2008, about 5 percent of U.S. adults reported feeling anxious on a regular basis. By 2018, that number had increased to nearly 7 percent. The increase was even sharper among young adults. For people ages 18 to 25, anxiety nearly doubled during that time.

Then came the COVID-19 pandemic. In early 2020, anxiety levels in the U.S. shot up dramatically. In April of that year, more than one in five adults said they felt anxious most of the time. Since then, anxiety levels have come down somewhat, but they have not returned to pre-pandemic levels. Today, depending on the survey, roughly one in three adults under 35 report having frequent anxiety symptoms.

The differences in these numbers can be confusing. Some headlines say 10 percent of people have anxiety. Others say it’s closer to 40 percent. The truth is, it depends on how anxiety is defined, who is being asked, and when the data was collected. Studies based on formal diagnoses usually report lower numbers. Studies based on self-reported symptoms often report higher ones. Surveys during the height of the pandemic found much higher rates of anxiety than those done before or after.

Despite the differences, the overall trend is clear. Anxiety has been rising in the U.S., especially among younger people, over the last 15 years.

As for why anxiety is rising, there’s no single answer. Many researchers point to several factors that affect mental health today. These include the constant use of social media, the pressure to stay connected and productive, the rising cost of living, student debt, uncertain job prospects, climate anxiety, political division, and the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Longer screen time, less sleep, fewer in-person friendships, and less access to nature may also be part of the problem.

At the same time, it’s not all bad news. Talking about anxiety is less taboo than it used to be. Many people, especially younger adults, are more open to discussing mental health. That openness can make it easier for others to speak up, find help, and feel less alone.

Colleges and universities have expanded access to mental health services, including online counseling and peer support groups. Public health campaigns have helped raise awareness. And new tools like therapy apps and mindfulness programs have made mental health support more accessible.

If you’re feeling anxious on a regular basis, you’re not alone. There’s no shame in struggling. It can help to talk to someone you trust, whether that’s a friend, family member, teacher, or counselor. Taking care of your physical health—through sleep, movement, and good nutrition—can also make a difference. So can setting boundaries with technology and making time for offline activities.

It’s worth remembering that you’re not just a statistic. But the numbers do tell a story. And that story shows that many young people are dealing with a world that feels uncertain, overwhelming, and disconnected. Anxiety is part of the reaction to that reality—not a personal failure.

If you’re in crisis or need someone to talk to, you can call or text the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline. It’s free, confidential, and available 24/7.

The Higher Education Inquirer covers the intersections of education, labor, technology, and justice. If you have a story to share, you can reach out to us securely and anonymously.

UATX and the Manhattan Statement: A Reactionary Vision Masquerading as Reform

The July 14 release of the Manhattan Statement on Higher Education, authored by conservative activist Christopher Rufo and endorsed by a network of public intellectuals including Jordan Peterson and Victor Davis Hanson, signals a renewed attempt to politicize and reengineer U.S. higher education from the top down. The University of Austin (UATX), founded in 2021 as a counter to so-called "woke" universities, quickly aligned itself with the statement’s aims. In his July 17 response, UATX President Carlos Carvalho embraced Rufo’s framing, declaring that his institution was created to reverse what he and others call a crisis of truth and national identity in American academia.

But as previously noted by the Higher Education Inquirer in the article “Socrates in Space: University of Austin and the Art of Selling Platitudes to the Powerful” (July 2024), UATX is not a revolutionary institution. It is a repackaged version of elite academia, complete with wealthy donors, highly connected board members, and a PR strategy rooted in grievance politics. The school’s language of “freedom,” “truth,” and “rigor” masks a political project designed to shape a new generation of conservative elites, while marginalizing alternative perspectives and undermining the pluralism that genuine education requires.

The Manhattan Statement claims that American universities have become engines of ideological tyranny, no longer serving the public good. It calls on the President of the United States to draft a “new contract” that would tie federal funding and accreditation to ideological conformity, enforced through policy tools like grants, loans, and eligibility restrictions. In short, it advocates for government control over academic speech and governance—precisely the kind of top-down coercion that critics of higher education claim to oppose.

President Carvalho responded with a full-throated endorsement of this approach, asserting that universities today lack rigor and suppress dissent, and that UATX alone fosters true academic freedom and civic responsibility. He describes a meritocratic admissions process based on quantitative performance metrics, a rigorous curriculum rooted in “civilizational survival,” and a mission to produce citizens capable of preserving “constitutional liberty and national prosperity.”

In practice, UATX is a selectively curated intellectual space, one that draws heavily on a Western classical canon and excludes broader traditions of inquiry. The “quantitative metrics” for admissions echo longstanding tools of exclusion used by elite schools, masking inequality behind a rhetoric of objectivity. The institution is unaccredited, but wrapped in the trappings of prestige: slick marketing, elite endorsements, and curated media profiles. It critiques the influence of DEI offices while quietly building its own ideological infrastructure, funded by libertarian and neoconservative donors.

UATX claims to break from the existing higher education establishment, but in many ways it reflects its worst tendencies: elite gatekeeping, narrow curriculum design, and a penchant for cultivating future power brokers under the guise of critical thought. Its alignment with figures like Rufo and institutions like the Manhattan Institute reveals that its primary mission is not educational transformation, but political reprogramming.

The true crises in higher education—mounting student debt, the precarity of adjunct labor, bloated administration, and the deepening divide between elite and non-elite institutions—are ignored in both the Manhattan Statement and UATX’s institutional messaging. Instead, culture war narratives dominate the agenda. Rather than addressing the exploitative political economy of higher education, Rufo and Carvalho advance a project that serves to consolidate influence among ideologically aligned elites, while framing dissent and diversity as existential threats to the republic.

UATX is not a path forward for American higher education. It is a reflection of its decay—an institution more interested in slogans and spectacle than in solving the structural issues that actually imperil the future of learning and equity in the United States.

Sources:

Christopher Rufo, Manhattan Statement on Higher Education, July 14, 2025
Carlos Carvalho, UATX Response to the Manhattan Statement, July 17, 2025
University of Austin promotional materials and public statements, www.uaustin.org
Higher Education Inquirer, Socrates in Space: University of Austin and the Art of Selling Platitudes to the Powerful, July 2024
New York Times, The University That War on “Wokeness” Built, December 2021
Inside Higher Ed, UATX and the Spectacle of Merit, February 2024
Chronicle of Higher Education, Is UATX a University or a Political Project?, January 2023

Sexual Criminals in US Higher Education: A Brief History

Sexual abuse in US higher education has persisted for decades across multiple institutional domains. Perpetrators have included doctors, professors, athletic staff, administrators, fraternity members, and students. While some high-profile cases have drawn national attention, many remain buried under confidentiality agreements, weak oversight, and institutional reluctance to act against powerful individuals and organizations.

Medical and athletic departments have been at the center of several major cases. At the University of Southern California (USC), Dr. George Tyndall, a campus gynecologist, was accused by hundreds of women of sexual abuse during exams spanning three decades. Despite internal complaints dating back to the 1990s, USC allowed Tyndall to remain employed until 2016. The university later agreed to a $1.1 billion settlement in 2021, the largest sexual abuse settlement in higher education history.

At Michigan State University (MSU), Dr. Larry Nassar sexually abused hundreds of women and girls, including Olympic athletes, while serving as a team physician. Reports were repeatedly ignored or minimized by athletic staff and administrators. In 2018, Nassar was sentenced to 40 to 175 years in prison. MSU paid $500 million in settlements to survivors.

Pennsylvania State University saw one of the most publicized cover-ups in collegiate sports when former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was convicted in 2012 of sexually abusing boys over a 15-year period. High-ranking university officials, including President Graham Spanier and Athletic Director Tim Curley, were later convicted for failing to report allegations. The scandal led to resignations, criminal charges, and a significant financial settlement.

The University of Michigan faced a similar reckoning. Dr. Robert Anderson, a campus physician, was accused by more than 1,000 former students and athletes of sexual abuse between 1966 and 2003. The university acknowledged that numerous complaints were not acted upon and agreed to a $490 million settlement in 2022.

Columbia University reached a $236 million settlement in 2023 with hundreds of patients of Dr. Robert Hadden, a gynecologist accused of sexually abusing women over several decades. Hadden, affiliated with Columbia and NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, had previously received limited sanctions and continued treating patients despite multiple complaints.

Beyond medical and athletic departments, faculty and administrators have also engaged in sexual misconduct. At Harvard University, government professor Jorge Domínguez was accused of harassment spanning four decades. Multiple internal warnings went unheeded. Domínguez retired only after public pressure and a university investigation confirmed a pattern of misconduct and institutional failure.

Louisiana State University (LSU) was investigated by the U.S. Department of Education following reports of systemic failures to respond to sexual misconduct complaints, including those involving football players and fraternity members. A 2021 report by the law firm Husch Blackwell detailed widespread noncompliance with Title IX procedures and administrative inaction.

Fraternities represent another enduring source of sexual violence and institutional evasion. Greek organizations have been linked to a disproportionately high number of sexual assault reports on campuses. A 2007 sociological study by Armstrong, Hamilton, and Sweeney documented how alcohol-fueled fraternity parties serve as a structural context for what they called "party rape." Despite such findings, enforcement has remained limited.

At Baylor University, a 2016 scandal exposed multiple incidents of sexual assault involving football players and fraternity affiliates. The university hired the law firm Pepper Hamilton, whose report concluded that Baylor had failed to implement Title IX protections. Several university leaders, including President Ken Starr, were forced to resign.

Ohio State University faced its own reckoning when more than 350 men accused team doctor Richard Strauss of sexual abuse from the 1970s through the 1990s. The university confirmed that coaches and administrators were aware of complaints but failed to act. OSU has paid over $60 million in settlements.

The fraternity Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) has faced repeated allegations of sexual misconduct and hazing across numerous campuses, including the University of Oklahoma and Louisiana State University. Although some chapters were suspended, most eventually returned, often with limited structural changes.

At the University of Southern California, the Sigma Nu fraternity was suspended in 2021 after multiple students reported being drugged and assaulted at fraternity events. Student protests followed, demanding greater accountability and questioning the role of fraternities on campus. However, no permanent action was taken against Greek life.

Phi Delta Theta was implicated in the 2017 hazing death of LSU freshman Max Gruver, alongside other reports of sexual misconduct involving chapter members. Gruver’s death, caused by forced alcohol consumption, led to criminal charges and civil litigation, but the fraternity was not banned permanently.

The University of Michigan, University of Virginia, and Columbia University have all faced scrutiny over fraternity-related assaults. At UVA, the controversial and later-retracted 2014 Rolling Stone article “A Rape on Campus” sparked national attention, but also backlash. Nonetheless, the story accelerated broader examinations of sexual assault within Greek life.

Some religious institutions have also been implicated. A 2021 ProPublica investigation into Liberty University found that administrators had discouraged sexual assault victims from reporting incidents and in some cases penalized them under the school’s conduct codes. Liberty settled related lawsuits for $14 million and remains under federal investigation.

Federal laws such as Title IX and the Clery Act require institutions to report and address sexual misconduct, but enforcement is inconsistent. Many institutions use non-disclosure agreements and confidential settlements to manage liability without public accountability. Survivors report that grievance processes are often retraumatizing, with few consequences for perpetrators.

Advocates have called for mandatory public reporting of misconduct cases, independent oversight of campus adjudication, and restrictions on the use of NDAs in sexual misconduct settlements. Some have proposed the creation of a national registry for faculty and staff found responsible for misconduct—similar to systems used in K-12 education—but no such registry currently exists.

The prevalence of sexual abuse in higher education—whether committed by faculty, doctors, athletic staff, or fraternity members—reflects institutional priorities that often place reputation and revenue above student and employee safety. While some institutions have taken steps toward transparency and reform, systemic change remains limited.

Sources
The New York Times. (2021). "USC Agrees to Pay $1.1 Billion to Settle Gynecologist Abuse Claims."
ESPN. (2018). "Larry Nassar sentenced to 40 to 175 years."
NPR. (2012). "Jerry Sandusky Sentenced To 30 To 60 Years For Sex Abuse."
Detroit Free Press. (2022). "University of Michigan to settle sexual abuse lawsuits for $490 million."
The New York Times. (2023). "Columbia to Pay $236 Million in Settlements Over Gynecologist’s Abuse."
Harvard Crimson. (2021). "Domínguez Investigation Finds 40 Years of Sexual Misconduct, Institutional Failures."
USA Today. (2021). "LSU mishandled sexual misconduct complaints."
American Sociological Review. (2007). “Sexual Assault on Campus: A Multilevel, Integrative Approach to Party Rape,” Armstrong, Hamilton, Sweeney.
The Atlantic. (2014). "The Dark Power of Fraternities."
CNN. (2017). "LSU Student Dies in Hazing Incident."
Rolling Stone. (2014, Retracted). “A Rape on Campus.”
Columbia Journalism Review. (2015). “The Lessons of Rolling Stone.”
ProPublica. (2021). “The Liberty Way.”
Chronicle of Higher Education. (2022). “After USC Fraternity Suspensions, Students Push for Greek Life Abolition.”
Inside Higher Ed. (2021). “Fraternity and Sorority Misconduct: Policy Gaps and Institutional Avoidance.”
U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (2024). “Open Title IX Investigations in Postsecondary Institutions.”
North American Interfraternity Conference. (2023). Public Statements on Campus Regulation.

Spying on Climate: What the Intelligence Community Knew and When They Knew It

 On June 30, 2025, the National Security Archive published a revealing new briefing book titled “Spying on Climate: Inside Intelligence.” The release includes more than two dozen once-secret documents showing that the U.S. Intelligence Community has been closely tracking climate change as a national security threat for decades. Far from being a niche environmental concern, climate disruption has been consistently framed in these internal assessments as a driver of conflict, instability, resource scarcity, and mass migration—issues of direct importance to U.S. national security.

The collection includes detailed analyses from agencies including the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. These assessments underscore how environmental shifts—from flooding and sea level rise to desertification and extreme heat—are already affecting geopolitical dynamics. In regions from Sub-Saharan Africa to Southeast Asia, climate stress has been shown to amplify risks of war, terrorism, authoritarianism, and mass displacement. The Arctic thaw has raised the stakes for U.S.-Russia competition. Drought and crop failure are destabilizing fragile governments. And millions of people are being forced to move, often toward borders that are increasingly militarized.

One especially significant report, produced by the National Intelligence Council in 2021, warned that climate change would “exacerbate cross-border flashpoints, particularly over water and migration.” The 2024 Annual Threat Assessment from the Director of National Intelligence also emphasized that climate-related hazards are expected to intensify, directly affecting U.S. military infrastructure and increasing demands for humanitarian and disaster relief operations.

Although many of these findings have appeared in unclassified summary form in recent years, this newly released archive reveals the long-standing nature of the intelligence community’s attention to the issue. One report, commissioned in the early 2000s, was kept classified for over 17 years and only made public in February 2025. It detailed early efforts to model climate instability and its implications for military readiness and international order. Other documents show how climate security assessments informed Pentagon and diplomatic planning as early as the late 1990s.

These disclosures are not part of a political campaign or advocacy push. They come from some of the most secretive and security-focused institutions in the U.S. government—agencies that prioritize global surveillance, satellite data, and geopolitical modeling over ideology. Their purpose is to identify and mitigate threats, not to build consensus or win elections.

The implications are clear. Climate change is not a distant or debatable threat; it is a persistent, multi-decade risk documented in some of the most secure channels of government communication. For those who still dismiss or downplay climate science, these documents challenge that complacency. If the CIA and Pentagon have treated climate change as a strategic risk for years, it raises the question: why would any rational civilian ignore it?

At a time when disinformation about climate change is rampant, and when powerful interests continue to sow doubt for financial or political gain, the release of these documents is a stark reminder that the highest levels of U.S. intelligence have already moved far past debate. They have been planning for climate disruption not as possibility but as certainty.

To pretend otherwise is to ignore a body of evidence that has now been dragged into the light. The intelligence community isn’t in the business of making policy recommendations, but it does flag risks. It is now up to civil society, higher education, and the public to respond with the urgency that the moment demands.

Sources:
National Security Archive, “Spying on Climate: Inside Intelligence,” June 30, 2025. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/climate-change-transparency-project/2025-06-30/spying-climate-inside-intelligence
National Security Archive, “The Climate Intelligence Consensus,” February 28, 2025. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/climate-change-transparency-project-intelligence/2025-02-28/climate-intelligence
Office of the Director of National Intelligence, “Annual Threat Assessment,” February 2024. https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-2024-Unclassified-Report.pdf

Interest charges will restart for borrowers in SAVE forbearance (Student Borrower Protection Center)

 

Student Borrower Protection Center’s research partners are conducting a groundbreaking research study that aims to understand how Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) and Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) programs impact borrowers’ well-being. If you are currently in an IDR plan, working towards PSLF, or your loans have been cancelled through PSLF, please consider participating below (Password: REPAYE). Participate in Survey   Dahn, The Biden Administration’s Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) repayment plan promised to lower monthly student loan payments for millions of Americans. But legal attacks by the same conservative state attorneys general who exploited the courts to block President Biden’s original student debt relief plan resulted in a court injunction that has blocked borrowers from enrolling. Thus, borrowers have been trapped in a year-long, interest-free forbearance while their unprocessed Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) applications wait in limbo. But now, Trump and Education Secretary McMahon are saddling these borrowers with interest. Last week, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) announced that it will begin restarting student loan interest charges on August 1, 2025, for the nearly 8 MILLION borrowers stuck in this forbearance. McMahon voluntarily chose to do this—there was no state or federal court order forcing her hand. Read our Executive Director Mike Pierce’s statement on this below:   “Instead of fixing the broken student loan system, Secretary McMahon is choosing to drown millions of people in unnecessary interest charges and blaming unrelated court cases for her own mismanagement. Every day, we hear from borrowers waiting on hold with their servicer for hours, begging the government to let them out of this forbearance, and help them get back on track—instead, McMahon is choosing to jack up the cost of their student debt without giving them a way out. These are teachers, nurses, and retail workers who trusted the government’s word, only to get sucker-punched by bills that will now cost them hundreds more every month. McMahon is turning a lifeline into a trap and fueling one of the biggest wealth grabs from working families in modern history. It’s a betrayal.”   Read the Full Statement In response to this announcement, we released a new analysis of this policy change, projecting that the typical SAVE borrower will be forced to pay more than $3,500 per year—or $300 per month—in unnecessary interest charges. In total, we found that affected borrowers will be charged more than $27 BILLION in interest over the next 12 months. Read Our Analysis Borrowers have suffered long enough because of the broken student loan system. Despite promises to lower costs for working families, Trump and his allies have only raised them more. Eliminating SAVE and replacing it with the Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP) created by Congressional Republicans means the typical student loan borrower will see their annual student loan costs skyrocket by $2,900—and millions of other borrowers will see their monthly loan bills increase by 50 percent. In fact, they will pay more for longer. RAP forces borrowers to pay for 30 years instead of the 20-25 year timelines of current IDR plans. And now, the Trump Administration wants to pile $27 billion dollars of interest charges over the next 12 months onto struggling borrowers. But McMahon can’t hide from her decision to drown borrowers in interest charges. We’ve been busy sounding the alarm of her policy choice in widespread coverage: Washington Post: Trump Ends Interest Subsidy for Biden’s Student Loan Repayment Plan MarketWatch: Millions of Americans are about to see their student loans accrue interest again. Here’s what to know. Daily Mail: Millions of Student Loan Borrowers to Be Hit With Crippling Interest Charges as Trump Ends Biden-Era Pause New York Times: 8 Million Federal Student Loan Borrowers Will Soon See Interest Restart Newsweek: Student Loan Update: Interest Payments Expected To Jump Thousands The attacks on borrowers and working families must end. Borrowers deserve justice—not retaliation to the tune of billions of dollars in unnecessary, harmful debt. In solidarity, Brandon Herrera Communications and Digital Strategist 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:

1. Supreme Court of the United States. Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U.S. ___ (2023). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_n6io.pdf

2. ProPublica. “Tracking PPP Loans.” https://projects.propublica.org/coronavirus/bailouts/

3. 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

4. U.S. Department of Education. “Borrower Defense to Repayment.” https://studentaid.gov/borrower-defense/

5. Guttmacher Institute. “State Bans on Abortion Throughout Pregnancy.” Updated May 2025. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-policies-later-abortions

6. 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.