Search This Blog

Thursday, July 31, 2025

Rigged: How Redistricting Threatens Democracy in the 2026 US House Elections

As the 2026 midterm elections approach, efforts to manipulate congressional district boundaries—under the guise of redistricting—pose a serious threat to representative democracy in the United States. These efforts are not simply a matter of partisan politics; they represent a calculated attack on the principle of one person, one vote, and on the fragile trust working Americans place in democratic institutions.

Across multiple states, redistricting maps are being drawn to favor incumbents and dominant political parties, most often through a practice known as gerrymandering. While both major parties have been guilty of gerrymandering, the recent wave of redistricting efforts has intensified in key battleground states, particularly following the 2020 Census and court rulings that rolled back federal oversight.

Some of the most blatant manipulations are unfolding in Southern and Midwestern states, where legislatures have redrawn districts to dilute the voting power of Black, Latino, and low-income communities. In states like Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Ohio, courts have intervened—only to be ignored, delayed, or overruled by higher courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. The result: districts that favor white conservative voters while silencing diverse urban and working-class voices.

These distortions in representation aren't merely political—they have real consequences for education policy, healthcare, labor rights, and civil rights. When working families and students find themselves in districts designed to neutralize their votes, their needs are less likely to be met by elected officials. Funding for public education, protections for contingent workers, and relief from student loan debt are often neglected in favor of corporate interests and ideological agendas.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision paved the way for even more aggressive gerrymandering, ruling that federal courts could not adjudicate claims of partisan gerrymandering. That decision effectively gave state legislatures a green light to draw lines with political intent, even when the result undermines basic democratic principles. And with the Voting Rights Act gutted in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), many communities of color no longer have a legal shield against discriminatory maps.

In a just system, redistricting would be handled by independent commissions. In some states, this is happening—California, Michigan, Arizona, and a handful of others have taken steps toward fairer maps. But in most of the country, the party in power controls the process and uses sophisticated data tools—often developed by private firms with little transparency—to fine-tune districts down to the household level. This isn’t democracy. It’s data-driven voter suppression.

For students, low-income voters, and working-class Americans, the implications are profound. A House of Representatives that does not reflect the electorate cannot be expected to act on behalf of its needs. Adjunct professors, student debtors, gig workers, rural teachers, and public librarians already operate on the margins. When their political voices are diluted, they are pushed even further to the periphery.

These redistricting battles also have an educational cost. In states where partisan gerrymandering has secured one-party rule, legislatures have targeted curriculum content, attacked diversity and inclusion programs, cut higher education funding, and undermined faculty tenure—all without meaningful opposition. Political disempowerment leads directly to institutional decay.

The Higher Education Inquirer calls attention to these developments not only because they distort elections, but because they warp the social and economic future of the country. The 2026 House elections may be won or lost not at the ballot box but on a redistricting map drafted behind closed doors in state capitals.

The right to vote is hollow if the outcome is predetermined. The promise of representative government collapses if districts are engineered to deny equal voice. Without public awareness and pressure, these efforts to undermine democracy will go unchecked.

It’s time to speak plainly: Unless there is a national movement to restore fairness to the process, the House of Representatives in 2026 will be even less representative of the people it claims to serve.

Sources:

  • Brennan Center for Justice. “The Redistricting Landscape, 2023–2026.”

  • ProPublica. “How Politicians Use Redistricting to Lock in Power.”

  • NPR. “Supreme Court Ruling Lets Partisan Gerrymandering Stand.”

  • Southern Coalition for Social Justice. “Voting Maps and Racial Disenfranchisement.”

  • ACLU. “Gerrymandering: How It Works and Why It Harms Democracy.”

  • U.S. Census Bureau. “Apportionment and Redistricting Data.”

Linda McMahon and the College Meltdown

July 2025 was not simply a busy month for the U.S. Department of Education—it was a deliberate and coordinated effort to reshape higher education in line with the political goals of the Trump administration. Under the leadership of Education Secretary Linda McMahon, the Department issued a torrent of investigations, policy changes, and legal maneuvers aimed at asserting control over universities and redefining the role of postsecondary education in American life.

What emerged was not the repair of a broken system, but the acceleration of a political project: to narrow the mission of higher education, undermine its independence, and punish institutions that resist the administration’s agenda.

A Month of Directives

The month began with the Department entering a resolution agreement with the University of Pennsylvania over Title IX violations (July 1). By July 2, the administration had concluded a negotiated rulemaking session focused on reshaping the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program—signaling that student aid reforms would now be filtered through political priorities rather than bipartisan consensus.

On July 4, the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act was signed into law. This sweeping legislation gave the administration a mandate to implement provisions on accreditation, federal aid restrictions, civil rights compliance, and so-called “viewpoint neutrality.” Within two weeks, McMahon’s team was already implementing key parts of the bill, using it to alter the rules that govern financial aid eligibility and institutional recognition.

"Civil Rights" Enforcement as a Political Strategy

Throughout the month, the Department launched a wave of investigations under Title VI and Title IX. But the choice of targets raised concerns. Rather than focus on systemic discrimination or long-standing legal violations, the Department directed its attention toward cases that aligned with conservative cultural concerns.

  • On July 8, an investigation was opened into the Connetquot Central School District after it banned a Native American logo.

  • On July 10, George Mason University became the subject of a Title VI probe.

  • On July 23, five universities were flagged for offering scholarships that allegedly favored foreign-born students.

  • By July 25, five Northern Virginia school districts were found in violation of Title IX.

Harvard, Columbia, Duke, the University of Michigan, and Brown University were all pulled into scrutiny, with Columbia agreeing to pay $200 million and submit to new data-reporting requirements. These actions may appear to be standard enforcement but taken together they reflect a pattern of choosing high-profile or politically charged institutions as symbolic examples.

The use of federal compliance tools to pressure institutions seen as ideological opponents is not unprecedented—but under McMahon, it has become routine.

Policy Realignment and Workforce Redirection

On July 10, the Department announced the termination of federal aid for undocumented students, marking a sharp reversal from past practices. Just five days later, the Department entered into a new partnership with the Department of Labor to promote workforce training, part of a longer-term effort to reorient higher education toward narrow economic outcomes rather than liberal arts or civic development.

While such initiatives are framed as “efficiency” or “innovation,” the underlying message is clear: colleges that do not align themselves with federal job-training goals or cultural expectations may find their access to funding, recognition, and legal protections limited.

Restructuring the System

The Supreme Court’s decision on July 14 to permit a reduction in federal staffing has further empowered the Department to cut or replace internal personnel. By July 24, two new negotiated rulemaking committees were established, tasked with translating the One, Big, Beautiful Bill into enforceable rules. These committees will likely define the next phase of McMahon’s agenda—on issues like accreditation, financial eligibility, foreign influence, and institutional autonomy.

At the state level, the Department approved Missouri’s new pilot assessment program on July 31, continuing a pattern of promoting alternatives to standardized federal oversight. Meanwhile, state education officials were encouraged (July 29) to request waivers from burdensome federal requirements—an invitation to bypass regulations established under previous administrations.

What This Means for Higher Education

The July timeline reflects not just a burst of administrative activity, but a broader strategy to centralize decision-making power and reshape the ideological landscape of U.S. higher education. The Department has moved away from serving as a neutral enforcer of civil rights and federal law, and toward acting as a gatekeeper for cultural and political conformity.

Colleges that emphasize diversity, global engagement, or progressive research are increasingly viewed with suspicion. Those that fail to meet the administration’s evolving definition of compliance may face costly investigations, public shaming, or the loss of federal support.

The term “College Meltdown” once referred to financial instability, enrollment declines, and the erosion of public trust. Under Linda McMahon, it now also refers to a deliberate restructuring of the postsecondary system—where ideological alignment may determine institutional survival as much as financial solvency.

Sources:

  • U.S. Department of Education, July 2025 public statements and press releases

  • One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act, signed July 4, 2025

  • Columbia University settlement, July 23, 2025

  • Supreme Court ruling on federal workforce reductions, July 14, 2025

  • Negotiated Rulemaking updates from the Office of Postsecondary Education

  • Brown University agreement with the Department of Education, July 30, 2025

Over 1,000 Colleges Could Lose Access to Federal Student Aid: AEI Report Documents Systemic Failures

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has published a report indicating that more than 1,000 U.S. colleges could lose access to federal student aid—if Department of Education standards were enforced as written. While AEI typically promotes market-based approaches, this report draws attention to broader failures in the governance of higher education and student aid.

In "Over 1,000 Colleges Could Lose Access to Federal Student Aid," AEI researcher Beth Akers identifies institutions that would not meet federal financial responsibility and administrative standards. These schools—many of them for-profit or underfunded nonprofits—show high student loan non-payment rates, dependence on Title IV aid, and weak student outcomes. 

According to the report, 1,113 colleges have non-payment rates above 30%, a threshold that can trigger the loss of federal aid. An additional 656 colleges are near that threshold.

Under current policy, such institutions could face sanctions or funding loss. In practice, enforcement is inconsistent. Many of these colleges continue operating with federal funds while offering little evidence of educational or financial benefit for students.

A Pattern of Inaction

This is not a new development. Federal oversight has long been uneven. Accrediting agencies have allowed low-performing schools to remain in good standing. Legislative oversight has been limited and sometimes influenced by lobbying. The result is a system where colleges can access public funds with little accountability.

Students, especially those from low-income and first-generation backgrounds, are often left with debt and limited employment options. The burden also falls on taxpayers who support these institutions through federal programs.

Colleges with High Non-Payment Rates

Some of the institutions listed in AEI’s report have appeared in investigations for years. Examples include:

  • American Intercontinental University (~45%)

  • Colorado Technical University (~42%)

  • United Education Institute / UEI College (~43–44%)

  • Florida Career College (~58%) – closed after fraud findings

  • Fortis Institute / Fortis College (~41–43%)

  • All State Career School (~48%)

  • Barber and cosmetology schools such as K&G 5 Star Barber College (TX), GoodFellas Barber College (AR), and Ray J’s College of Hair (LA), with non-payment rates between 60–74%

These schools are part of a larger group that relies heavily on federal aid while producing high loan default and non-payment rates.

A Broader Systemic Problem

The issues identified in the AEI report reflect a larger problem. Colleges are allowed to participate in federal aid programs without meeting consistent standards for financial stability or student outcomes. The aid system rewards enrollment growth but often overlooks quality and results.

The report raises questions about how federal aid is distributed and monitored. It also highlights the limited role of accreditors and the need for more consistent enforcement of existing rules.

Looking Ahead

The AEI report is based on public data and identifies a clear policy problem. Whether it leads to change depends on decisions by federal officials, lawmakers, and the public. Continued support for colleges with poor performance comes at a cost—borne by students and taxpayers.

The Department of Education has tools to limit this harm, but those tools have not been used effectively. The question now is whether they will be.

Sources:

  • Akers, Beth. Over 1,000 Colleges Could Lose Access to Federal Student Aid. American Enterprise Institute, July 30, 2025. 

  • Republic Report, July 2025

  • Business Insider, July 2025

For further information on at-risk institutions or specific regional trends, the Higher Education Inquirer continues to track developments closely.

HEI and the Backstage of Higher Education

The Higher Education Inquirer (HEI) exists not to flatter the ivory tower, but to peer behind its stage curtains—into the backstage of higher education, where the hidden scripts are written and the illusions maintained.

For decades, mainstream media and college marketing machines have focused their attention on the front stage of higher education: gleaming campuses, smiling students, glowing success stories, and elite rankings. This curated image serves the interests of university administrators, politicians, media conglomerates, and Wall Street investors. But what lies behind the scenes is far more complex—and far more consequential for working families, indebted students, adjunct instructors, and the public at large.

Pulling Back the Curtain

HEI’s mission is to expose what Erving Goffman might call the “backstage” of academia: the place where the elite performance of higher education is rehearsed and maintained through opaque deals, digital enclosures, and predatory practices. It’s where the real business of higher education unfolds—often at odds with the public good.

We investigate the corporatization of the university, the abuse of contingent labor, the unpayable debts foisted on students, and the machinations of political operatives and private equity barons who have colonized education as a commodity. We speak with whistleblowers, student debtors, low-wage academic workers, and those abandoned by a system that promises mobility but too often delivers exploitation.

The Business of the Dream

In the backstage world of higher education, dreams are monetized. Institutions like the University of Phoenix, Grand Canyon University, and even respected nonprofits have built empires on financial aid schemes and manipulated metrics. Behind them are financiers, hedge funds, and lobbying firms whose interests are rarely aligned with students or educators.

The same institutions that publicly tout diversity and access often quietly outsource instruction to underpaid adjuncts, collaborate with surveillance edtech companies, and silence internal dissent. Meanwhile, media organizations that once held universities accountable have cut education reporters or become entangled with the very institutions they should be questioning.

The Hidden Curriculum

The Higher Education Inquirer operates as a counterforce to this manufactured consensus. We are not neutral. We are critical, investigative, and guided by a commitment to social justice, transparency, and truth-telling. We report not only what universities and policymakers say, but what they do—and whom their decisions harm.

Our coverage includes:

  • Student debt and loan forgiveness, including the struggles of Corinthian Colleges alumni and the unfinished business of accountability.

  • Adjunct labor and the two-tier academic caste system.

  • Edtech’s empty promises, from learning analytics to AI hype.

  • The political economy of elite universities, including their ties to hedge funds, Silicon Valley, and state power.

  • Federal regulatory theater, where revolving doors between government and for-profit colleges remain a threat to the public interest.

From the Margins to the Archive

HEI serves a different audience—those who have been ignored or exploited by higher education's front-facing PR. We amplify stories from below and archive the struggles that mainstream outlets won’t touch.

We also aim to document history as it happens—before it’s rewritten by university presidents or erased by marketing teams. We provide a long memory in a system increasingly shaped by ahistorical metrics and technocratic solutions.

A Public Good Reclaimed

We don’t pretend to be objective bystanders. Our journalism is part of a larger struggle to reclaim education as a public good, not a private privilege. We call for solidarity with students, educators, and workers. We demand that institutions serve the people who make them run, not just the ones who profit from their prestige.

The backstage of higher education is messy, fraught, and at times devastating. But by pulling back the curtain, we believe there’s still a possibility of building something better.

Sources

  • The Higher Education Inquirer archives

  • Whistleblower accounts

  • U.S. Department of Education public data and FOIA requests

  • Interviews with contingent faculty and student debtors

  • Academic research on neoliberalism, debt peonage, and credential capitalism

Wednesday, July 30, 2025

Coalition of North County Organizations to Host "Fight Against Fascism (Rage Against the Regime)" Rally and March in Escondido, Sat Aug 2nd 5 PM

ESCONDIDO, CA – A coalition of North County San Diego community organizations will host a peaceful rally and march on Saturday, August 2nd, as part of a national "Rage Against the Regime" day of action. The event will take place from 5:00-7:00 PM at the corner of W Valley Parkway and N Broadway, near Escondido City Hall, with a march through downtown Escondido beginning at 5:30 PM.

The rally is organized by Indivisible North County San Diego, 50501 North County San Diego, and We the People, bringing together community members to voice concerns about current federal policies and their local impacts.

"As we continue to see this trend away from a robust democracy towards authoritarianism, the typical guardrails meant to protect Americans from government overreach are straining if not beginning to fail. With disturbing historical parallels of the executive branch ignoring court orders, usurping power from Congress, deploying the military on domestic soil against American citizens, or kidnapping people off the street, it's clear one of the best tools the public has to ensure we continue to live in a free society is non-violent civil disobedience." said Richard Cannon, an organizer with 50501 North County San Diego.

Event Highlights

Express Yourself: Community members are encouraged to participate through various forms of positive, constructive expression including:

  • Recording videos for social media and giving interviews to local news outlets
  • Creating signs and writing letters to elected officials on key issues
  • Participating in planned theater performances, sidewalk art, live street music, and other interactive activities

Take Action: The rally will provide opportunities for civic engagement including:

  • Learning how to support immigrant communities through documentation and reporting of federal immigration enforcement efforts
  • Voter registration for upcoming local and state elections
  • Information about volunteering and donating to advocacy organizations, and participation in non-violent civil disobedience

March With Us: Participants are invited to bring flags, instruments, banners, and signs to join the peaceful march through downtown Escondido.

Key Issues to Be Addressed

Rally organizers plan to highlight several policy concerns, including:

  • Federal immigration enforcement's intentional profiling and illegal detention of Latino and Hispanic Americans, including U.S. citizens and legal residents1 2
  • Medicaid and food security cuts that will affect residents in North County, and all of San Diego
  • Federal worker mistreatment
  • Support for raising up working and middle-class families

The coalition emphasizes that this is a peaceful demonstration focused on constructive community engagement and civic participation.

Event Details

What: "Fight Against Fascism (Rage Against the Regime): Escondido" Rally and March
When: Saturday, August 2nd, 5:00-7:00 PM. March begins 5:30 PM.
Where: Corner of W Valley Parkway and N Broadway, Escondido (near City Hall 201 N Broadway, Escondido, CA 92025) Cost: Free and open to the public. Community members are encouraged to register at https://events.pol-rev.com/events/fa1f32f0-e684-426e-86dc-6107ee07a1ed

Media Contact

To coordinate any media attendance, please reach out to the day-of media below:

Gregg Oliver
858-245-9802

About the Organizing Coalition

Indivisible North County San Diego, 50501 North County San Diego, and Trouble Nation are grassroots organizations focused on community engagement, civic participation, and advocacy on local and national issues affecting North County residents.


References:

1 Salomon, Gisela. "A US citizen was held for pickup by ICE even after proving he was born in the country." Associated Press, April 19, 2025. https://apnews.com/article/us-citizen-held-ice-florida-law-4b5f5d9c754b56c87d1d8b39dfedfc6c

2 Contreras, Russell. "ICE accused of racial profiling in detentions of Latino U.S. citizens." Axios, July 9, 2025. https://www.axios.com/2025/07/09/ice-us-citizens-detention-racial-profiling


signal-2025-07-23-120321_002.jpeg

Higher Learning Commission Passes the Buck on Ambow-CSU Deal

The Higher Learning Commission (HLC), the regional accreditor for Colorado State University (CSU), has refused to comment on whether it is investigating or overseeing any partnership between CSU and Ambow Education, a Chinese-American education technology company with a record of volatility, opacity, and questionable business practices.

In an email to the Higher Education Inquirer on July 28, HLC Public Information Officer Laura Janota wrote, “You would need to check with the institution regarding any specifics about its agreement with Ambow Education.” While acknowledging that HLC evaluates an institution’s offerings and operations as part of its ongoing accreditation relationship, Janota pointed to generic contractual guidance on the HLC website rather than offering any assurance that the accreditor is scrutinizing a deal involving Ambow—a company that has raised alarms due to its foray into the U.S. higher ed sector via its HybriU platform.

This type of response is not unusual for HLC, which has come under criticism for its lack of accountability and its longstanding pattern of accrediting both elite universities and subprime colleges.

As previously reported by the Higher Education Inquirer:

"Institutional accreditation is no sign of quality. Worse yet, accreditation by organizations such as the Middle States Association, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, and the Higher Learning Commission is used by subprime colleges to lend legitimacy to their predatory, low-standard operations."

According to the U.S. Department of Education, HLC currently accredits 946 Title IV-eligible institutions, opening the doors for them to collectively receive nearly $40 billion in federal student aid annually—along with billions more from the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs.

HLC accredits prestigious institutions such as the University of Chicago, University of Michigan, and Notre Dame. But it also accredits notorious subprime schools including Colorado Technical University, DeVry University, University of Phoenix, Walden University, National American University, and Purdue University Global. On the three pillars of regional accreditation—compliance, quality assurance, and quality improvement—HLC has consistently failed when it comes to oversight of predatory institutions.

Even as far back as 2000, critics within academia called out the ethical rot. The American Association of University Professors protested HLC’s support of for-profit schools. That same year, then-AAUP General Secretary Mary A. Burgan remarked:

"I really worry about the intrusion of the profit motive in the accreditation system. Some of them, as I have said, will accredit a ham sandwich."

HLC’s financial structure reinforces this compromised position: it is funded by the institutions it accredits. Over the last 30 years, HLC has collected millions of dollars in dues from some of the nation’s most predatory schools. This funding model mirrors the conflicts of interest that plagued credit rating agencies during the 2008 financial crisis—a comparison made explicitly by economists David Deming and David Figlio in a 2016 report:

“Accreditors—who are paid by the institutions themselves—appear to be ineffectual at best, much like the role of credit rating agencies during the recent financial crisis.”

Despite public attention, federal oversight of accreditors remains weak. Under the Trump-DeVos administration, regulatory protections were rolled back significantly. A 2023 internal investigation revealed that the U.S. Department of Education was not adequately monitoring accreditors, confirming what many higher education watchdogs already knew: that no one is truly watching the accreditors.

The Ambow-CSU situation underscores this systemic failure. Rather than acting as an independent reviewer, HLC has chosen to defer responsibility to the very institution it is tasked with overseeing. This is not just a case of passing the buck; it's another example of accreditors shielding themselves from accountability while public institutions are left to make private deals with for-profit entities—unchecked, unregulated, and largely unreported.

Sources:

Growth, Politics, and Power: What Q2 GDP Means for Trump and the Fed

The US economy expanded at a 3.0 percent annualized rate in the second quarter of 2025, a figure that surprised many analysts following a weak first quarter. But the surface-level recovery masks deeper economic fragility. Much of the Q2 growth was driven by a sharp drop in imports following tariff-related stockpiling earlier in the year. The statistical boost from this reversal, along with modest consumer spending, was enough to produce a positive headline number. Business investment, meanwhile, declined sharply, and real final sales to domestic purchasers rose only 1.2 percent—a better measure of underlying demand.

Donald Trump has wasted little time framing the growth figure as a sign that his policies, particularly tariffs and threats of deregulation, are strengthening the economy. In speeches and media appearances, Trump and his advisors have pointed to the 3 percent growth rate as a vindication of “America First” economic nationalism. But the disconnect between the apparent strength of the economy and its internal weaknesses presents challenges for the Federal Reserve and risks a new phase of politicization of monetary policy.

The Federal Reserve, led by Chair Jerome Powell, is unlikely to change course immediately. Inflation remains above target, and the core of the economy continues to show signs of stagnation. The central bank's dual mandate—price stability and maximum employment—does not support an immediate rate cut, especially with housing costs and services inflation still elevated.

Trump has been openly hostile toward Powell and the Fed's recent decisions to keep interest rates high. He has repeatedly claimed that the central bank is working against his administration and hinted that he would seek significant changes if re-elected. That threat has gained traction among his political allies, some of whom have revived calls to limit the Fed’s independence or reform its structure.

One of the most talked-about possibilities is that Trump could move to replace Powell before his term ends in 2028. While removing a sitting Fed chair is unprecedented and legally questionable, Trump has previously floated this idea and sought alternative paths to reshape the institution. A leading candidate to replace Powell in a second Trump administration is Judy Shelton, a longtime critic of the Federal Reserve and an advocate for a return to a gold standard or a quasi-fixed currency system.

Shelton’s nomination to the Fed board failed in the Senate during Trump’s first term, largely due to concerns about her unorthodox views and perceived lack of commitment to central bank independence. Her statements questioning the Fed’s role as lender of last resort and her support for aligning monetary policy more closely with White House priorities have drawn sharp criticism from economists across the political spectrum. Nonetheless, she has remained a visible figure in conservative monetary policy circles, and her views align with Trump’s desire to exert greater influence over interest rates and financial markets.

Replacing Powell with someone like Shelton would represent a fundamental shift in the Fed’s orientation. It would signal that monetary policy could become more directly shaped by political pressures, particularly during election cycles. Financial markets, already sensitive to signs of instability, would likely respond with volatility. International confidence in the Federal Reserve’s autonomy could weaken, with long-term consequences for the dollar and global capital flows.

The Q2 GDP report, in this context, is less a sign of sustained recovery than it is a flashpoint in an ongoing political struggle over economic governance. The apparent growth has given Trump a short-term rhetorical victory, but the underlying economic challenges remain unresolved. The Fed, for now, continues to operate independently. 

Sources
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
Associated Press, July 30, 2025
Barron’s, July 30, 2025
Bloomberg, June 27, 2025
Washington Post, July 30, 2025
Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED)
Congressional testimony archives on Judy Shelton, 2020–2021

Judge Bove, the Rule of Law, and the Reactionary Turn of the Courts

Judge Richard Bove has been publicly critical of judicial institutions, warning that American courts have strayed from their intended function of upholding justice and truth. In particular, Bove has voiced concern about how whistleblowers are treated—targeted for retaliation, marginalized by institutions, and left without recourse in a system designed to shield the powerful. But Bove’s own record and affiliations cast doubt on the consistency of his legal philosophy. As a Trump-aligned appointee, Bove is more likely to deepen the court’s ideological entrenchment than to reverse it. His selective critiques of the judiciary seem less about strengthening the rule of law than about steering it toward reactionary ends.

Bove has written extensively about whistleblower suppression, documenting how statutes like the Whistleblower Protection Act and False Claims Act are gutted by procedural roadblocks and judicial indifference. He has pointed to a pattern in which federal courts quietly dismiss cases before any public accountability can emerge. These arguments have real merit. In education, defense, public health, and finance, those who speak out against corruption are often destroyed professionally—and the courts typically do little to protect them.

Yet Bove’s credibility as a reformer is undermined by his political proximity to Trumpism, a movement that has actively eroded public trust in legal and democratic institutions while consolidating judicial power through appointments, loyalty tests, and legal reinterpretations designed to roll back rights. While Bove criticizes certain elements of the judiciary, he appears to support—and potentially enable—the broader project of reactionary capture.

His recent elevation comes at a time when the U.S. Supreme Court has already lurched to the right, and trust in the institution is near historic lows. The Roberts Court has gutted voting rights, weakened environmental protections, and removed federal abortion protections. These are not isolated rulings; they reflect a larger pattern of judicial rollback. Adding judges like Bove to the lower federal courts—and possibly grooming them for higher positions—is a strategy to entrench that agenda for decades.

The idea that the Supreme Court is now “broken” assumes it was once apolitical. But history suggests otherwise. From Dred Scott and Plessy to Lochner and Buck v. Bell, the Court has long used its authority to uphold racial hierarchies, corporate dominance, and the suppression of dissent. In this sense, Bove does not represent a break with tradition but rather a continuation of it—albeit with a different rhetorical emphasis.

In his writings, Bove laments the loss of public trust in courts. But trust is earned through fair and consistent application of the law, not through ideological fidelity or performative dissent. His own views suggest a selective application of justice: one that claims to protect whistleblowers while aligning with a political movement that regularly vilifies them; one that criticizes judicial corruption while serving those who have actively undermined judicial independence.

The whistleblowers Bove claims to defend are often the same people targeted by the very forces that empowered his rise. Those who exposed abuses at ICE detention centers, in the Trump Organization’s finances, in the handling of COVID-19 data, or in for-profit education scams tied to political donors—many found no champion in the courts. And they are unlikely to find one in Bove.

Bove’s appointment must be understood not just in terms of individual qualifications, but in terms of broader institutional transformation. Courts are being packed not just with conservatives, but with ideologues who share a narrow vision of rights—especially corporate and religious ones—while constraining public protections, reproductive freedoms, and worker rights.

In the long term, this strategy may succeed in shifting the legal consensus even further. The Court, already unmoored from popular legitimacy, could continue to reverse decades of legal precedent. While Bove raises important points about how the system fails truth-tellers, his participation in a wider political project of rollback should not be ignored. His version of the rule of law is unlikely to serve the public—it is more likely to reinforce a system that protects power from accountability.

Sources
Richard Bove, “The System Punishes Whistleblowers While Enabling Crime,” Financial Regulation Newsletter, 2023
Richard Bove, “Why the Courts Are Losing Public Trust,” Independent Legal Review, 2024
National Whistleblower Center, “Judicial Retaliation Against Whistleblowers,” 2023
The Brookings Institution, “The Supreme Court and Public Legitimacy,” 2023
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905)
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)
Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022)
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013)

General Costin’s Crusade: Liberty University and the Rise of Christian Authoritarianism

In July 2023, Liberty University appointed retired Major General Dr. Dondi E. Costin as its sixth president. A decorated U.S. Air Force chaplain with 36 years of military service, Costin’s career culminated as the 18th Air Force Chief of Chaplains. While his leadership credentials are impressive, his appointment raises significant questions about the militarization of higher education leadership and what it signals for Liberty University’s future direction.

A Military Leader in the Ivory Tower?

Higher education is traditionally a space for critical inquiry, academic freedom, and the nurturing of diverse perspectives. Liberty University, founded by Jerry Falwell Sr. and often described as America’s largest Christian university, occupies a contentious position — intertwining evangelical conservatism with academia. The addition of a former high-ranking military officer, steeped in hierarchy, discipline, and obedience, risks further constraining intellectual openness and reinforcing authoritarian tendencies within the institution.

Universities thrive on dialogue, dissent, and academic freedom — values often at odds with the command-and-control ethos of military structures. The concern is whether Dr. Costin’s leadership will prioritize conformity over the open exchange of ideas fundamental to higher learning.

Liberty’s Law School: A Conservative Legal Powerhouse

Liberty’s School of Law has grown rapidly into an influential institution within conservative legal circles. It positions itself as a training ground for lawyers dedicated to defending Christian values in courts and policy arenas nationwide. The school’s curriculum explicitly emphasizes “Christian worldview” approaches to law, often at odds with mainstream legal scholarship.

Graduates of Liberty Law are increasingly visible in conservative judicial appointments and legal advocacy organizations that push for legislation restricting abortion rights, rolling back LGBTQ+ protections, and challenging the separation of church and state. The school’s aggressive promotion of religious conservatism through legal channels reinforces Liberty’s broader goal of shaping America’s political and cultural landscape in alignment with Christian fundamentalism.

The Jesse Helms School of Government: Shaping the Next Generation of Conservative Leaders

Named after the late Senator Jesse Helms, a staunch conservative and evangelical advocate, Liberty’s Jesse Helms School of Government furthers the university’s mission to cultivate political leaders committed to advancing Christian fundamentalist policies. The school provides training in public policy, political science, and leadership — all deeply infused with evangelical Christian ideology.

This school plays a crucial role in preparing students to enter government and political organizations aligned with Liberty’s vision, promoting a fusion of religion and politics that many critics argue undermines democratic pluralism and the constitutional separation of church and state.

From Separation of Church and State to Theocracy

Historically, many in the Religious Right once upheld the principle of separation of church and state — a constitutional safeguard preventing government endorsement of any religion. Yet over recent decades, there has been a marked ideological shift. Today’s Religious Right increasingly embraces a vision of theocracy: governing according to religious law and doctrine.

Liberty University exemplifies this shift. Founded as an evangelical bastion, it has evolved into a political and religious powerhouse seeking to reshape American society around a narrowly defined evangelical worldview. This movement blurs constitutional boundaries, aiming to replace secular governance with religiously based rule.

Christian Fundamentalism vs. Scientific Consensus

Liberty’s curriculum and public messaging consistently promote Christian fundamentalist beliefs, often rejecting established scientific understandings. For example:

  • Evolution: Liberty’s biology courses teach creationism or intelligent design as alternatives to evolution, contradicting the overwhelming scientific consensus.

  • Climate Change: The university’s stance downplays human-driven climate change, undermining environmental science education.

  • Reproductive Health: Liberty promotes abstinence-only education and opposes contraception and abortion rights, often relying on religious doctrine rather than medical science.

Such conflicts erode the academic credibility of Liberty University and call into question the preparedness of its graduates for careers in science, medicine, or public policy.

A Billion-Dollar Edu-Religious Empire

Liberty’s vast financial empire — boasting nearly $1.6 billion in annual revenue and $4.2 billion in assets — underscores its ambitions beyond education. Its aggressive online program recruitment, which frequently leaves students with significant debt and limited job prospects, raises ethical questions about exploiting faith for financial gain.

Implications for Students, Faculty, and the Broader Academic Community

Students and faculty deserve environments that encourage free thought, debate, and scholarly rigor. The presence of a former military general whose leadership style may emphasize hierarchy and obedience raises fears of increased ideological conformity and suppression of dissent.

As Liberty deepens its fusion of religious authority, military discipline, and political activism, it risks transforming the university into a training ground for theocratic governance rather than a place of open academic inquiry.

Theocracy U

Dr. Dondi E. Costin’s appointment signals more than a mere administrative change at Liberty University. It reflects a broader ideological and institutional transformation toward authoritarianism and theocracy within a major U.S. higher education institution.

As the Religious Right continues to challenge foundational American principles — including separation of church and state — it is critical that educators, policymakers, and the public scrutinize how these shifts affect academic freedom, institutional integrity, and the future of higher education.

Liberty’s students, faculty, and wider society deserve transparency and vigilance to ensure universities remain spaces of learning and critical inquiry — not battlegrounds for religious and political domination.


Sources

When American Greed is the Norm

Greed is no longer a sin in America—it’s a system. It’s a curriculum. It’s a badge of success. In the American higher education marketplace, greed is not the exception. It’s the norm.

We see it in the bloated salaries of university presidents who deliver austerity to everyone but themselves. We see it in billion-dollar endowments hoarded like dragon’s gold while students drown in debt. We see it in the metastasizing ranks of middlemen—consultants, online program managers, enrollment optimization firms—who profit off the dreams and desperation of working-class families.

But greed in American higher education is more than a few bad actors or golden parachutes. It is institutionalized, normalized, and weaponized.

The Student as Customer, the Campus as Marketplace

It began with the rebranding of education as a “return on investment,” a transaction rather than a transformation. The purpose of college was no longer to liberate the mind but to monetize the degree.

By the 1990s, under bipartisan neoliberal consensus, public colleges were defunded and forced to adopt the private sector’s logic: cut costs, raise prices, sell more. Tuition rose. Debt exploded. The ranks of administrators swelled while faculty were downsized and adjunctified. The market had spoken.

But even that wasn’t enough. A generation of edu-preneurs emerged—Silicon Valley-funded disruptors, for-profit college chains, and online program managers—who turned learning into a scalable commodity. Robocolleges like Southern New Hampshire University, Purdue Global, and the University of Phoenix began operating more like tech platforms than institutions of thought.

The result? Diploma mills at the front end and collection agencies at the back.

Greed in the Name of God and Country

Greed doesn’t always look like Wall Street. Sometimes it wears the face of morality. Religious colleges, some of them under the protection of nonprofit status, have become breeding grounds for political operatives and ideological grooming—while raking in millions through taxpayer-funded financial aid.

Liberty University, Grand Canyon University, and a host of lesser-known Bible colleges operate under a warped theology of prosperity, turning salvation into a subscription plan. Meanwhile, they push anti-democratic ideologies and funnel money toward political causes far removed from the mission of education.

Accreditation as a Shell Game

The accreditors—the supposed watchdogs of educational quality—have been largely asleep at the wheel or complicit. When greed is the norm, accountability is an inconvenience. For-profit schools regularly reinvent themselves as nonprofits. Online program managers operate in regulatory gray zones. Mergers and acquisitions disguise collapse as growth.

Accreditation agencies rubber-stamp it all, as long as the paperwork is tidy and the lobbyists are well-compensated.

Debt as Discipline

More than 43 million Americans carry federal student loan debt. Many will never escape it. This debt is not just financial—it’s ideological. It keeps the workforce compliant. It disciplines dissent. It renders critical thought a luxury.

And those who push for debt relief? They are met with moral lectures about personal responsibility—from the same lawmakers who handed trillions to banks, defense contractors, and fossil fuel companies.

Silicon Valley's Hungry Mouth

The new frontier of greed is AI. Tech giants like Google, Amazon Web Services, and Meta are embedding themselves deeper into education—not to empower learning, but to extract data, monetize behavior, and deepen surveillance. Every click, every quiz, every attendance record is a monetizable moment.

Universities, starved for funding and afraid of obsolescence, are selling access to students in exchange for access to cloud infrastructure and algorithmic tools they barely understand.

Greed Isn’t Broken—It’s Working as Designed

In this system, who wins? Not students. Not faculty. Not society.

The winners are those who turn knowledge into a commodity, compliance into virtue, and inequality into inevitability. Those who build castles from the bones of public education, then retreat behind walls of donor-backed endowments and think tanks. The winners are few. But they write the rules.

A Different Future Is Possible

If American greed is the norm, then what remains of education’s soul must be found in the margins—in the community college professor working three jobs. In the librarian defending open access. In the adjunct organizing a union. In the students refusing to be pawns in someone else’s game.

The antidote to greed is not charity—it’s solidarity.

Until justice is funded as well as football. Until learning is valued more than branding. Until access is more than a talking point on a donor brochure—then greed will remain not just a sin, but a system.


Sources

  • U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics

  • The Century Foundation, “The OPM Industry: Profits Over Students” (2023)

  • Chronicle of Higher Education, “Administrative Bloat and the Adjunct Crisis”

  • IRS Nonprofit Filings, Liberty University and Grand Canyon University

  • Debt Collective, “The State of Student Debt” (2025)

  • Public records and audits of Title IV institutions, 2022–2024

  • Higher Education Inquirer archives

Smoke, Mirrors, and the HybriU Hustle: Ambow's Global Learning Pitch Raises Red Flags

On July 25, 2025, Ambow Education released a press statement heralding the launch of its HybriU Global Learning Network—a grand vision to connect U.S. universities with students around the world through AI-driven hybrid classrooms, immersive tech, and overseas support centers in places like Singapore and China. The announcement paints Ambow as a transformative edtech player capable of bypassing borders, red tape, and traditional learning models.

But for all its futuristic promises, the press release is long on hype and short on verifiable substance.

Ambow’s materials list no actual U.S. university partnerships. There are no student outcomes, no published evaluations, and no pricing models. Instead, the rollout appears to rest on vague invitations for licensing or revenue-sharing arrangements, alongside a photo shoot of stock images and boilerplate claims about AI, 3D environments, and "borderless" learning.

HEI's previous stories on Ambow Education are here

A Track Record of Trouble

Ambow’s track record hardly inspires confidence. Its U.S. acquisition, Bay State College, was fined by the Massachusetts Attorney General in 2020 for deceptive marketing and lost accreditation before closing in 2023. Another acquisition, NewSchool of Architecture & Design in San Diego, is under federal Heightened Cash Monitoring, has fewer than 300 students, and is embroiled in lawsuits over unpaid wages and bills.

Despite this, Ambow continues to market itself as a next-gen education leader while reporting zero dollars in research and development spending for three years running. Its executive leadership is unusually consolidated—CEO Jin Huang also serves as CFO and Board Chair—and its auditor is a little-known Chinese firm, casting doubt on financial transparency.

Universities Should Proceed with Caution

Ambow claims it can solve the international enrollment crisis for U.S. schools by providing overseas “learning centers” where students can engage in U.S. courses without needing a visa. It’s a seductive pitch in the wake of global travel restrictions, demographic cliffs, and state budget cuts. But unless Ambow can produce proof of academic rigor, data security, and actual delivery, U.S. institutions risk far more than bad PR.

So far, no university named in the company’s outreach has confirmed participation—including those Ambow has quietly courted, such as Colorado State University.

A Deafening Silence from Regulators

Following this latest press release, The Higher Education Inquirer sent detailed concerns and background information to:

  • The Securities and Exchange Commission

  • The U.S. Department of Education

  • The U.S. House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party

  • Multiple national and regional media outlets

None have responded.

Given the financial, academic, and geopolitical risks involved, this silence is as disturbing as the press release itself. If federal agencies, lawmakers, and the mainstream press won’t investigate edtech ventures like Ambow, who will hold them accountable?

The Pitch Doesn’t Match the Product

In an age where marketing often outpaces regulation and due diligence, Ambow’s HybriU project looks less like innovation and more like vaporware. It’s a business strategy built on perception, not performance.

Until Ambow can show real partnerships, transparent governance, and validated outcomes, universities would be wise to avoid becoming the next Bay State College.

Sources

Ambow Education press release via Yahoo Finance:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ambow-launches-hybriu-global-learning-100000841.html

Massachusetts Attorney General fine against Bay State College (2020):
https://www.mass.gov/news/ag-healey-secures-relief-for-students-of-bay-state-college

Accreditation loss and closure of Bay State College:
https://www.bostonherald.com/2023/06/01/bay-state-college-officially-closes-after-months-of-controversy/

Heightened Cash Monitoring database, U.S. Department of Education:
https://studentaid.gov/data-center/school/hcm

Ambow Education SEC filings:
https://www.sec.gov/edgar/browse/?CIK=1489947

NewSchool of Architecture lawsuits (public docket research required for updates)

Col. Larry Wilkerson: Defeated Once, Israel Faces a Collapse It May Not Survive (Dialogue Works)



Dedicated to dialogue and peace, "Dialogue Works" is hosted by Nima Rostami Alkhorshid.

At Dialogue works, we believe there’s nothing more unstoppable than when people come together. This group’s mission is to create a global community of diverse individuals who will support, challenge, and inspire one another by providing a platform for Dialogue. We encourage you to share your knowledge, ask questions, participate in discussions, and become an integral part of this little community. Together we can become a better community and provide our members with a much better experience.

1 Progressive vs 20 Far-Right Conservatives (ft. Mehdi Hasan)



Hillsdale College’s DOJ Survey: A Masterclass in Hypocrisy Disguised as Civic Concern

Hillsdale College’s latest “National Survey on the Department of Justice” masquerades as a civic exercise in constitutional literacy and patriotism. In reality, it’s a loaded questionnaire riddled with ideological bias, selective outrage, and institutional self-congratulation. Far from promoting constitutional order, this survey reveals Hillsdale’s deep entanglement in a partisan culture war—ironically undermining the very principles of equal justice and civic education it claims to uphold.

The survey opens with a question any reasonable person would answer affirmatively: “Do you believe in the constitutional principle of equal justice?” But quickly, the mask slips. Subsequent questions shift from abstract ideals to coded political messaging: “Do you believe the far-Left uses the Department of Justice to target constitutional conservatives?” This is not a good-faith attempt to gauge public opinion—it’s a rhetorical trap, designed to confirm a worldview rather than explore the public’s views on justice or democracy.

The language is ideologically charged and binary. There is no question about right-wing abuses of federal power, no concern for political violence from the far-right, and no space for nuance. Respondents are offered a singular narrative: that left-wing actors have “weaponized” the DOJ, and that only Hillsdale’s form of “sound education” can prevent tyranny.

Even the educational initiatives Hillsdale boasts about—its 1776 Curriculum, its “American Left: From Liberalism to Despotism” course—are less about critical civic engagement and more about indoctrination. There’s no mention of racial injustice, mass incarceration, or corporate influence in shaping federal law enforcement priorities. Those issues, central to any serious discussion about equal justice, are absent. Instead, Hillsdale reinforces the myth that it alone is safeguarding the Constitution.

The college’s proud refusal to accept federal or state aid—touted in question eight—is framed as proof of moral and intellectual purity. But this “independence” allows Hillsdale to operate outside the standard frameworks of accountability that most institutions of higher learning must navigate. It also enables the school to present one-sided content without the obligations tied to Title IV compliance or public transparency.

While the survey parades as a constitutional check on tyranny, it is in fact a political tool—a form of ideological branding meant to consolidate a conservative base under the guise of education. This approach not only fails to promote meaningful civic discourse but actively contributes to its erosion.

If Hillsdale College were genuinely interested in fostering a thoughtful dialogue on the rule of law and civic education, it would ask more open-ended questions, avoid partisan framing, and welcome diverse viewpoints. Instead, it’s selling a product: a prepackaged narrative that conflates conservatism with constitutional fidelity and equates dissent with radicalism.

In the end, the survey doesn’t reflect a deep concern for the Department of Justice or the American legal system—it reflects Hillsdale’s campaign to position itself as the intellectual vanguard of a specific political movement. And for a college that claims to champion critical thinking, that’s the real betrayal.

Sources:

  • Hillsdale College, National Survey on the Department of Justice (2025)

  • “Hillsdale’s 1776 Curriculum,” Hillsdale College

  • Imprimis, Hillsdale College

  • U.S. Department of Education College Scorecard

  • Federal Student Aid: Title IV Compliance Information

The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation: A Media Tour Built on Contradictions

In mid-2025, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) began a coordinated media tour across the United States. The campaign has included visits to evangelical churches, conservative news outlets, and donor events. Johnnie Moore Jr., long associated with Liberty University and serving as executive chair of GHF, has been a primary spokesperson for the initiative.

The stated goal of the media campaign is to raise support for humanitarian relief operations in Gaza. However, the distribution of aid by GHF has been accompanied by significant violence. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) reported on July 22 that at least 766 people have been killed in the vicinity of GHF distribution sites. The Gaza Health Ministry stated on July 1 that approximately 70% of all aid-related deaths have occurred at or near these sites.

The OHCHR, along with Gaza officials and eyewitnesses, has attributed many of these deaths to Israeli military forces. Additionally, U.S. contractors working with GHF have been documented shooting Palestinian civilians at distribution points. Former GHF personnel have described a workplace environment with minimal oversight and a culture that devalues the people receiving aid.

On July 16, a crowd crush at a GHF site resulted in additional fatalities. Gaza authorities and witnesses have assigned responsibility to both GHF staff and the Israeli military, while GHF has claimed that the incident was caused by Hamas.

Doctors Without Borders has described the situation around GHF aid sites as “slaughter masquerading as aid.” The Center for Constitutional Rights, along with 14 other human rights organizations, issued a joint statement warning that GHF could be implicated in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide under international law.

Despite the severity of these incidents, GHF and the Israeli Defense Forces have consistently denied that their actions have caused civilian deaths. Both organizations assert that only warning shots were used. GHF has acknowledged one deadly incident—referring to the July 16 crowd crush—but disputes the account provided by Gaza officials.

GHF was established in early 2025 with backing from U.S. political donors and coordination with the Israeli military. Independent oversight of the organization's activities in Gaza has been limited.

The Higher Education Inquirer began investigating GHF and its leadership in the context of broader inquiries into the political influence of Christian universities. For years, HEI has investigated the intersection of higher education, foreign policy, and private contractors. We continue this work because few others are doing so.

Sources:

  • UN OHCHR Situation Reports, July 2025

  • Gaza Health Ministry Statements, July 2025

  • Doctors Without Borders Press Release, July 2025

  • Center for Constitutional Rights, Joint Statement, July 2025

  • Witness statements documented by international and local media

  • Gaza Humanitarian Foundation press briefings

  • Higher Education Inquirer archives, 2016–2025

Tuesday, July 29, 2025

Triumphalism in Decline: A Critique of “They Attack Because We’re Strong”

In his recent Inside Higher Ed opinion piece, “They Attack Because We’re Strong,” Frank Fernandez argues that American higher education is under fire not because it is failing, but because it is too powerful and influential. He calls for a long-view perspective that celebrates the accomplishments of U.S. colleges and universities over the past century. But his essay—well-intentioned as it may be—reads less as a sober reflection and more as institutional nostalgia, untethered from the brutal realities of the present.

Fernandez’s triumphalism overlooks or distorts several truths. It is true that U.S. universities have had moments of undeniable achievement: scientific breakthroughs, professional training, and expansion of access. But to say “higher education won” is to ignore the hollowing out of public trust, the corporatization of academia, and the structural harm inflicted on millions of students and contingent workers. If this is victory, it has come at a staggering cost.

“Higher Education Won”? Who Lost?

One of the glaring absences in Fernandez’s narrative is any sustained acknowledgment of the student debt crisis—more than $1.7 trillion in outstanding loans that have left borrowers in financial limbo for decades. The author does not address how rising tuition, stagnating wages, and declining public investment have turned the promise of higher education into a burden for the working class and communities of color.

Nor does he wrestle with the implications of an adjunct majority workforce. Most college instructors today work under precarious contracts with little pay, no benefits, and no job security. This is not a sign of institutional strength. It is a labor crisis.

The rhetorical move to compare today’s struggles with the early 20th century glosses over the fact that the institutions that once expanded access are now increasingly exclusionary. Public flagships and elite privates alike are doubling down on selectivity, building billion-dollar endowments, and investing in luxury amenities while cutting humanities departments and hiking student fees.

If the past 100 years have brought expansion, the past 20 have brought erosion.

Legitimacy Cannot Be Willed into Being

Fernandez concedes that “our challenge in this new era is primarily one of legitimacy.” But he frames this as a problem of perception, not performance. He cites faculty critiques over gendered language in a voter turnout study as a distraction, implying that the real work of the academy is hindered by too much internal debate. But that line of thinking presumes that legitimacy can be restored by tone and unity, not by systemic reform.

Legitimacy is not gained by declaring relevance—it is earned through material impact. That means resisting extractive tuition models, ending the abuse of contingent labor, and seriously confronting how the industry has facilitated racial and economic stratification.

It also means acknowledging that some of the conservative critiques—about administrative bloat, about ideological insularity, about weak accountability mechanisms—are not entirely without merit. These issues are not the inventions of “Trump acolytes,” but of decades of elite capture and mission drift.

A House Divided

Perhaps most troubling is Fernandez’s call for national solidarity among faculty and institutional leaders, modeled after the early AAUP. But today’s higher education system is profoundly stratified. Community colleges face declining enrollments and funding cliffs. HBCUs and regional publics have long been underresourced. For-profit colleges exploit the most vulnerable. And elite institutions continue to hoard wealth and status.

There is no shared struggle here. There is no unified front. The idea that faculty from a state university in Texas or an adjunct at a California community college share the same institutional mission as leadership at Princeton or Stanford is a comforting illusion. Solidarity will not emerge without reckoning with this inequality.

Conclusion

Fernandez asks us to see the attacks on higher ed as a signal of strength. But what if these attacks are, in part, the result of decades of institutional failure? What if irrelevance is not imposed from the outside but cultivated from within—through inaccessibility, arrogance, and systemic exploitation?

If higher education is to have a future worth defending, it will require more than collective nostalgia and appeals to tradition. It will require a commitment to equity, transparency, and accountability—not just to the ideals of the past, but to the people failed by the system today.

Sources:

  • U.S. Department of Education. “Student Loan Portfolio Summary.” Federal Student Aid.

  • AAUP. “Data Snapshot: Contingent Faculty in US Higher Ed.”

  • Center for American Progress. “The Cost of Cuts: A Look at the Ongoing Crisis in Public Higher Education.”

  • Georgetown University CEW. “The College Payoff.”

  • The Century Foundation. “How Public Colleges Have Been Undermined.”

  • National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).

Doctorates, Debt, and Decoupling: A State-Level Challenge to CAPTE’s Physical Therapy Monopoly (Glen McGhee)

Recent legal and policy debates have questioned monopolies in professional licensing and accreditation. The James G. Martin Center recently published a report arguing that the American Bar Association (ABA) does not need to accredit law schools, based on legal precedent and economic analysis.

The Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE) holds a comparable position in physical therapy education. Most states require applicants for licensure to graduate from a CAPTE-accredited program. Because CAPTE is the only recognized accreditor in the field, its requirement that all physical therapists complete a Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) program functions as a monopoly.

The DPT program typically lasts three years and costs $108,000 on average for in-state students, with out-of-state tuition around $126,000. Graduates often carry between $116,000 and $142,000 in student loan debt. Median salaries for physical therapists are approximately $89,000 per year, raising questions about the financial balance for many graduates.

Florida is considering changes that could challenge CAPTE’s position. Lawmakers, universities, and other stakeholders are reviewing state licensure rules to allow graduates from regionally accredited or master’s-level programs to qualify for licensure, provided they pass the National Physical Therapy Exam (NPTE). Advocates argue that no clear evidence links the DPT requirement with better board exam or clinical outcomes.

Workforce shortages support calls for reform. State data show physical therapy vacancies above 18 percent in some public health districts. Economic studies suggest that allowing master’s-level programs could reduce training costs by roughly 40 percent and increase the supply of licensed practitioners.

If Florida moves forward, public universities might revive Master of Physical Therapy (MPT) programs, and private institutions could develop accelerated combined bachelor’s and master’s tracks. Similar challenges may emerge in Texas, Ohio, and other states.

CAPTE and the American Physical Therapy Association defend the current accreditation model by citing quality and safety. Critics see the arrangement as an example of regulatory capture, where a private organization exercises control with little external oversight.

Sources

James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, “The American Bar Association Needn’t Accredit Law Schools,” July 2025. https://jamesgmartin.center/2025/07/the-american-bar-association-neednt-accredit-law-schools
Texas Public Policy Foundation, Escape Hatches from Higher-Ed Accreditation, 2020. https://www.texaspolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Gillen-Escape-Hatches-from-Higher-Ed-Accreditation.pdf
American Physical Therapy Association, DPT cost and debt data: https://www.apta.org/your-career/careers-in-physical-therapy/becoming-a-pt
National Physical Therapy Exam pass rates and licensure information: https://www.fsbpt.org/
NGA Center for Best Practices, The Future of Occupational Licensing Reform, 2023.