Was Turning Point USA inflitrated by a Russian informant?

In the murky world of political nonprofits and student organizations, foreign influence is often subtle—but sometimes the signs are hard to ignore. Turning Point USA (TPUSA), the high-profile conservative nonprofit mobilizing students across the United States, has come under our scrutiny for potential infiltration by individuals with Kremlin connections. 

Central to this story is Alexandra Hollenbeck, a former student journalist and TPUSA associate whose activities raise questions about Russian influence in American student politics.  While much of the information has been scrubbed from the Internet, we still hold considerable evidence.  

Hollenbeck’s Background and Unusual Affiliations

Alexandra Hollenbeck has contributed to conservative publications such as The Post Millennial, Washington Examiner, and TurningPoint.News. Her work includes coverage of pro-Trump narratives, student activism, and international affairs. 

In a 2017 article for TPUSA’s Student Action Summit, Hollenbeck reported on former Trump strategist Sebastian Gorka’s speech, highlighting his devotion to combating jihadists and supporting Trump’s agenda. Gorka’s talk drew historical parallels, beginning with the story of Paul, a 15-year-old boy walking through post-war Budapest, emphasizing that “liberty is as precious as it is fragile.”

Hollenbeck’s prominence within TPUSA circles became more conspicuous after she was photographed at the Kremlin during a pro-Putin rally—a rare and striking connection for a U.S.-based political journalist. 

Attempts at Federal Oversight and Silence

Inquiries to the FBI regarding Hollenbeck’s activities yielded no response.  TPUSA also never responded to our questions.  

Why TPUSA Could Be Vulnerable

TPUSA operates extensive student networks and organizes high-profile events that attract donors, media, and political figures. While the organization is influential within U.S. conservative circles, its internal vetting procedures for affiliates and journalists are less transparent. This opacity creates opportunities for individuals to gain access to sensitive networks, messaging, and potentially student data.

Hollenbeck’s activities—her Kremlin presence, her coverage of pro-Trump events, and her involvement in TPUSA events—illustrate why external scrutiny is warranted. While no definitive proof of espionage or formal Russian affiliation has been established, the pattern of her engagements suggests a potential risk of foreign influence.

Implications for Student Organizations

Hollenbeck’s case highlights broader vulnerabilities. U.S. student political organizations, particularly those with ideological missions and national reach, can be attractive targets for foreign influence. The combination of access to young adults, credibility on campuses, and ties to political figures creates strategic opportunities for external actors.

Even the perception of foreign infiltration can damage trust, complicate fundraising, and raise national security concerns, particularly when student data or organizational communications could be exposed.

Vigilance and Transparency Are Essential

While no concrete evidence has emerged proving that Hollenbeck acted on behalf of the Russian government, her Kremlin connections, TPUSA involvement, and early work covering ideologically charged events like Gorka’s summit illustrate a cautionary tale. Student organizations, nonprofits, and journalists must remain alert to potential foreign influence and implement safeguards to protect institutional integrity.

For TPUSA, this means auditing affiliations, reviewing internal vetting procedures, and ensuring participants act in the organization’s and public’s best interests. For journalists and watchdogs, it underscores the importance of persistent investigation into intersections between U.S.-based political networks and foreign actors.

The case of Alexandra Hollenbeck demonstrates that in today’s political environment, the lines between ideology, influence, and infiltration are increasingly blurred—and the stakes for student organizations and U.S. democracy are higher than ever.

Make America Crash Again (Glen McGhee and Dahn Shaulis)

The United States faces a complex mix of economic, social, and environmental challenges that, if left unaddressed, could lead to a significant downturn. These challenges include ongoing financial speculation, escalating climate impacts, regulatory rollbacks, rising isolationism, expanding surveillance, immigration enforcement policies, tariff conflicts, and the shifting global balance with the rise of BRICS nations. Alongside these issues, the growing student debt crisis and institutional vulnerabilities compound the nation’s fragility.

Financial markets continue to carry risks linked to speculative activity, which could destabilize critical sectors. The student loan debt, now over $1.7 trillion and affecting millions, limits economic opportunities for many Americans. Particularly concerning are the high-cost, for-profit education models that leave students burdened without clear paths to stable employment. This financial strain reflects broader systemic weaknesses that threaten sustained growth.

Climate change has begun to have immediate effects, with increasing natural disasters disrupting communities and infrastructure. Reduced environmental regulations have intensified these risks, disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations and increasing economic costs.

The rollback of regulatory protections in finance, environment, and education has allowed risky practices to grow while reducing oversight. This shift has raised the chances of economic shocks and deepened social inequalities.

Trade disputes and reduced international cooperation have weakened key economic and diplomatic relationships. At the same time, BRICS countries are expanding their influence, altering the global economic landscape in ways that require careful attention.

The expansion of surveillance programs and strict immigration enforcement have raised concerns about civil liberties and community trust. These pressures threaten the social cohesion needed to address larger systemic issues.

Recent reporting by the Higher Education Inquirer shows that the student debt crisis and speculative financial pressures in higher education mirror and magnify these broader challenges. The sector’s increasing reliance on debt financing not only affects students but also contributes to wider economic fragility (HEI 2025).

Earlier analysis emphasized that these trends were predictable outcomes of longstanding policy decisions and economic structures (HEI 2020).

             [Analysis of US Economic Downturns for duration and population impact]

Preventing a serious downturn requires coordinated action on multiple fronts. Strengthening regulations is necessary to reduce financial risks and protect consumers. Effective climate policies are essential, particularly those focused on vulnerable communities. Reforming higher education financing to reduce unsustainable debt burdens can ease economic pressures. Restoring international cooperation and fair trade practices will help rebuild economic and diplomatic relationships. Protecting civil rights and fostering social trust are crucial to maintaining social cohesion.

These issues are deeply interconnected and require comprehensive approaches.

Sources

Higher Education Inquirer, Let’s Pretend We Didn’t See It Coming...Again (June 2025): https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2025/06/lets-pretend-we-didnt-see-it-comingagain.html
Higher Education Inquirer, The US Working‑Class Depression: Let’s All Pretend We Couldn’t See It Coming (May 2020): https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2020/05/lets-all-pretend-we-couldnt-see-it.html
Federal Reserve, Consumer Credit Report, 2025
U.S. Department of Education, Student Loan Debt Statistics, 2025
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Sixth Assessment Report, 2023
Council on Foreign Relations, The BRICS and Global Power, 2024

Trump Exploits “Big Balls” Assault: Racialized Fear and Political Diversion

A violent D.C. attack becomes a national spectacle as Trump amplifies fear and racialized stereotypes—despite the fact the only juveniles in custody are a boy and girl from nearby Hyattsville, Maryland.

When Edward “Big Balls” Coristine, former Dogecoin executive, was brutally attacked in Washington, D.C. on August 3, the story might have been covered as a straightforward crime incident. Instead, former President Donald Trump turned it into a spectacle—leveraging the assault to reinforce racialized stereotypes, inflame political tensions, and divert attention from ongoing scrutiny over the Epstein case.

The Incident

Coristine and a female companion were targeted around 3:00 a.m. on Swann Street NW in Logan Circle by a group of roughly ten juveniles attempting a carjacking. Coristine suffered a concussion, a broken nose, and a black eye. His iPhone 16 was stolen. While police quickly intervened, only two of the juveniles—both 15-year-olds from Hyattsville, Maryland, a boy and a girl—were arrested. They were positively identified by the victims and charged with unarmed carjacking. The remaining eight suspects escaped.

Trump’s Rhetorical Spin

On his Truth Social platform, Trump posted a bloody photo of Coristine and labeled the attackers as “local thugs,” framing them as emblematic of out-of-control crime in D.C. He called for juveniles to be tried as adults and renewed his demand for a federal takeover of the District’s justice system.

The rhetoric is striking. Without releasing any confirmed information about the suspects’ race, Trump’s language taps into long-standing racialized fears about crime in urban areas, implicitly suggesting a connection to Black youth despite the fact the only two arrested were suburban Maryland teenagers. At the same time, the post functioned as a diversion. Amid ongoing media attention on the Epstein case, Trump amplified a violent story in D.C., steering coverage toward crime and juvenile offenders and away from scrutiny of his and his allies’ networks.

Media Reinforcement

Coverage by major outlets, while reporting the facts, often amplified Trump’s framing. Headlines repeatedly used charged language like “brutal attack” and “teenage thugs,” with images emphasizing the victim’s injuries. This coverage, combined with Trump’s own posts, reinforced a narrative that criminalized unnamed youths and fed into racialized assumptions about crime in D.C., even though the only teens in custody were a boy and girl from a nearby Maryland suburb.

The Maryland Connection

The Hyattsville connection complicates Trump’s framing of the assault as a “local D.C.” problem. Hyattsville is roughly five to seven miles from Logan Circle, easily reached in under 20 minutes by car or about 30–40 minutes by public transit. Suburban teens, not city residents, were in custody, yet the political messaging treated the incident as emblematic of the District’s crime problem.

The Bigger Picture

Trump’s commentary follows a familiar pattern: amplifying violent incidents to stoke racialized fears and push law-and-order narratives, often while deflecting attention from scandals that directly involve him or his associates. The juvenile offenders’ race and identity remain officially unreported, highlighting the speculative and racially coded nature of Trump’s claims. Meanwhile, the other suspects remain at large, and the actual circumstances of the assault are far more complex than his posts suggest.

Framing Big Balls as a Victim 

The “Big Balls” assault illustrates how political figures can manipulate crime narratives. Trump’s rapid weaponization of the incident demonstrates a clear playbook: racialized language, selective emphasis, and distraction from politically sensitive scandals. As the Epstein fallout continues, such diversions may become more frequent—using high-profile assaults, real or perceived, as fodder for political theater.

Sources:

WiredFox 5 DC

The Daily Beast

CBS News

Washington Examiner

Trumpism, Neoliberalism, and the Abandoned Majority

In the ongoing battle between Trumpism and neoliberalism, much of the mainstream narrative paints these forces as diametrically opposed. In reality, while they clash on culture-war rhetoric and political branding, both camps operate in ways that protect entrenched wealth and power—especially within higher education.

Trumpism, with its populist veneer, frames itself as a rebellion against “the establishment.” Yet Donald Trump’s policies in office—including massive corporate tax cuts, deregulation favoring billionaires, and the rollback of labor protections—aligned closely with neoliberal orthodoxy. His administration stacked the Department of Education with for-profit college lobbyists and dismantled borrower protections, leaving indebted students vulnerable to predatory lending.

Neoliberalism, as embodied by centrist Democrats and much of the university establishment, champions “meritocracy” and global competitiveness, but often functions as a machine for upward wealth transfer. University leaders such as Princeton’s Christopher Eisgruber, Northwestern’s Michael Schill, Harvard’s Claudine Gay, Stanford’s Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Texas A&M’s M. Katherine Banks, and reformist chancellors Andrew Martin of Washington University in St. Louis and Daniel Diermeier of Vanderbilt oversee institutions that cut faculty jobs, outsource labor, and raise tuition, all while securing lucrative corporate and donor partnerships. These leaders, regardless of political branding, manage universities as if they were hedge funds with classrooms attached.

In both cases, the non-elite—students burdened by soaring debt, adjunct professors lacking job security, and underpaid university workers—remain locked in systems of extraction. Trumpist politicians rail against “liberal elites” while quietly protecting billionaire donors and for-profit education interests. Neoliberal university leaders publicly oppose Trumpism but maintain donor networks tied to Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and global finance, reinforcing the same structural inequality.

This false binary obscures the shared economic agenda of privatization, commodification, and concentration of wealth and power within elite institutions. For the working class and the educated underclass, there is no true champion—only differing marketing strategies for the same system of exploitation.

---

Sources

• Henry A. Giroux, Neoliberalism’s War on Higher Education (Haymarket Books, 2014)

• David Dayen, “Trump’s Fake Populism,” The American Prospect

• Jon Marcus, “The New College Presidents and Their Corporate Mindset,” The Hechinger Report

• U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, “Borrower Defense to Repayment Reports”

• New York Times coverage of Claudine Gay, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Michael Schill, and M. Katherine Banks’ administrative records

When climate change dries out cloud computing (Bryan Alexander)

[Editor's note: This article first appeared at BryanAlexander.org.]

Greetings from a northeastern Virginia where the heat has been brutal.  For several weeks we lived under temperatures reaching 100 ° F, while humidity sopped everything badly enough that the “feels like” reading hit 110.   (And the Trump administration decided to federalize and militarize DC – that’s for another post.)

North of us, epic wildfires burned swathes of Canada.  “‘It’s the size of New Brunswick, to put it into context,’ Mike Flannigan, a professor of wildland fire at Thompson Rivers University, told CBC News.” This is apparently the second worst fire year on record.  Climate change has not only increased temperatures in that nation but dried out regions, making them tinder.

Parts of Europe are also suffering under horrendous heat waves.  As a result the region is experiencing upticks in fires, heat exhaustion, and deaths.  Temperatures are hitting the 30s and even 40s (centigrade; for Americans, this means upper 90s and over 100 F).

I’d like to explain about how these are predictable outcomes of the worsening climate crisis, how global warming is doing precisely what we thought it would do, but I’d also like to get in the habit of issuing shorter blog posts. Besides, I suspect my readers either get the point or have turned away by now.

What I wanted to focus on today was a recent connection made between Europe’s fierce summar, the climate crisis… and digital technology.  Britain is suffering under drought conditions exacerbated by global warming, a drought so harsh that the government has assembled a National Drought Group to organize responses.  (One of my shorthand expressions for thinking of climate change is that regions with too much water will receive more, while those with less, less.  A kind of climate Matthew Effect. The UK drought is an exception for now.)

Yesterday the drought team issued a report on the crisis, summing up steps various local authorities are taking along with series of recommendations for Britons wanting to take actions against the drought.  I’d like to draw your attention to one of them:

Fiery red box not in the original.

“Delete old emails and pictures as data centres require vast amounts of water to cool their systems.”

There’s much we can say or ask about that single line.  Just how much of an impact does cloud computing hosting have on British water use? If this is aimed at residents, are businesses or the government taking similar measures? Should one use cloud services not colocated in drought-stricken areas?

At a broader level I wonder about the possibility that the growing anti-digital movement, which some call the techlash, might finally become focused on climate implications.  Do we decide that advanced computing (think generative AI or bitcoin mining) has too large a footprint and must be curtailed? Or do we instead assess its climate benefits – crunching vast arrays of data, running simulations, generating new research – as outweighing these costs?

For years I’ve been asking audiences about the climate-digital connection. I’ve asked people to imagine individual and group choices they might have to make in the future as the crisis worsens and electricity becomes more fragile, more restricted. These are provocative, clarifying questions. Think of choosing between WiFi and air conditioning, or cloud computing versus refrigeration. And now we have a first glimpse of that future with the British government requesting Britons to cut back their digital memories.  We can imagine new questions in that light. How would you choose between streaming video and potable water, or Zoom versus crop irrigation?

The Higher Education Inquirer reminds us of the higher education implications.

For colleges and universities, the connection between digital behavior and resource conservation is an opportunity to model sustainability. Digital housekeeping campaigns could encourage staff and students to purge outdated files, trim redundant email chains, and archive with intent. Institutions can audit cloud storage use, revisit data retention policies, and prioritize providers that invest in energy- and water-efficient infrastructure. These choices can be paired with curriculum initiatives that make students aware of the climate–digital nexus, grounding sustainability not just in labs and gardens, but in inboxes and servers.

Indeed.  These actions are available to us, should we choose to take them.

Yet this is a difficult conversation to have now, at least in the United States, as the Trump administration attacks climate science even to the point of hurling a satellite out of Earth orbit.  Businesses are walking back climate commitments. Journalists don’t mention the crisis very often. Democrats are falling silent.  Yet, strangely enough, climate change continues, ratcheting up steadily.  We must think and act in response.  That means, among other things, rethinking our digital infrastructure and practices.

Comparing Adjunct Faculty Conditions: 2006 vs. 2025 — From Crisis to Collapse (Glen McGhee*)

In 2006, Washington state adjunct advocate Keith Hoeller described a higher education labor system already in deep trouble—adjuncts were underpaid, lacked job security, and served as a buffer protecting tenured faculty from cuts. Nearly two decades later, those warnings seem less like early alarms and more like an obituary for the tenure system. By 2025, the crisis has metastasized.

Pay and Financial Security: Poverty Wages Become the Norm

In 2006, Hoeller reported that Washington community college adjuncts earned just 57 cents for every dollar paid to their full-time colleagues. The disparity persists—and in some ways, it has widened. Today, more than a quarter of adjuncts report earning under $26,500 a year, below the federal poverty line for a family of four.

Course pay in 2025 still averages between $2,500 and $5,000, with some positions offering as little as $1,500 per course. Melissa Olson-Petrie’s 2025 account captures the reality vividly: adjuncts can be “required in teaching five or more classes a semester, with occasional overload schedules depleting your very marrow,” yet still earn tens of thousands less annually than full-time peers.

Job Security and Contract Precarity: From Insecure to Systematically Disposable

Adjuncts in 2006 faced last-minute class cancellations and almost no job security. In 2025, the instability is institutionalized. Seventy-six percent of part-time contingent faculty are on short-term, nonrenewable contracts. Olson-Petrie notes that adjuncts can lose all scheduled work with only seven days’ notice before a semester begins.

The Scale of Adjunctification: Contingency Becomes the Default

In 1987, 47 percent of U.S. faculty held contingent appointments; by 2006, there were about half a million adjunct professors. In 2025, 68 percent of all faculty are contingent, and 49 percent are part-time. This is no longer a marginal or temporary workforce—it is the dominant teaching corps in American higher education.

Union Representation: Gains, Losses, and Legislative Blows

Unionization of academic workers has expanded since 2006, with graduate student organizing seeing a 133 percent increase between 2012 and 2024. Yet the structural imbalance Hoeller warned of remains: full-time faculty often dominate mixed bargaining units, leaving adjunct priorities underrepresented.

The 2025 landscape also includes outright reversals. In Florida, where adjunct organizing had surged, all eight adjunct faculty unions—representing more than 8,000 professors—were dissolved in 2024 under state law requiring 60 percent dues-paying membership.

Academic Freedom: Now an Explicit Target

In both 2006 and 2025, adjuncts lacked tenure protections. But in the current political climate, academic freedom is under direct attack. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education warns that when three out of four professors lack tenure, political retaliation becomes easier. Recent non-reappointments at CUNY of adjuncts advocating for Palestinian rights show how swiftly dissenting voices can be silenced.

Federal and Institutional Pressures: The Trump Freeze and Funding Cuts

New forces compound old problems. Under the Trump administration, federal funding cuts, research grant threats, and hiring freezes have hit even the wealthiest universities. Institutions from Harvard to state schools are eliminating positions, further constricting opportunities for full-time, stable faculty roles.

Structural Deterioration: A Fully Entrenched Two-Tier System

Hoeller’s 2006 call for adjuncts to form independent bargaining units largely went unheeded. Full-time faculty continue to benefit from adjunct labor as a flexible shield against cuts, while adjuncts themselves are treated—per Olson-Petrie—as “little more than a high-quality paper towel within the academy.”

From Labor Problem to Institutional Crisis

Nearly every issue identified in 2006 has worsened. Today’s 68 percent contingent faculty rate represents not just a failure to protect academic labor but a transformation of the profession itself. The adjunct of 2025 faces economic exploitation, permanent precarity, and political vulnerability in an environment where structural reform has stalled, and in many cases, reversed.

Without systemic change—separately empowered unions, funding reinvestment, and real job security—the profession risks losing its foundation: the ability of educators to teach freely, securely, and sustainably.

Sources: Inside Higher Ed, AAUP, NEA, SEIU Faculty Forward, FIRE, ACE, Higher Ed Dive, U.S. News, AFT.

*Aided by ChatGBT. 

Silencing Higher Education: Trump’s War on Discourse About Genocide in Palestine

Academic institutions have long served as crucibles of free thought and protest. Yet under President Trump’s second term, universities have become battlegrounds in a sweeping campaign that conflates advocacy around the genocide in Gaza with antisemitism—and weaponizes Title VI and Title IX to stifle dissent. This article outlines the administration’s tactics, war crimes ramifications, and the universities ensnared so far.

---

War Crimes at Issue: Gaza Protests and U.S. Reaction

The conflict in Gaza has seen mounting allegations of genocide against Israel—claims underscored by protests on dozens of U.S. campuses. In response, the Trump administration has launched a social media “catch-and-revoke” system that uses AI to flag pro-Palestinian speech, leading to visa revocations and deportations—even targeting legal residents and green-card holders. Over 1,000 visa revocations were reported by mid-April 2025, rising to nearly 2,000 by mid-May—many later overturned by courts.

Activists such as Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University legal resident arrested during a protest, and Mohsen Mahdawi, detained during a citizenship interview, have been caught up in these actions—both cases widely criticized for infringing First Amendment rights. These responses reflect a concerted effort to equate peaceful protest with national-security threats under the guise of combating antisemitism.

---

Title VI Enforcement: Chilling Academic Freedom

Under a January 29, 2025 Executive Order, Trump directed federal agencies to squash antisemitism—including speech critical of Israel—by enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act against universities.

In March 2025, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights sent letters to 60 universities, warning of enforcement investigations over alleged antisemitism during pro-Gaza protests. This has had an unmistakable chilling effect on faculty, students, and campus activism.

---

Institutions Targeted and Financial Punishments

The administration’s pressure tactics have taken several forms.

Columbia University saw $400 million in federal grants and contracts canceled, tied to agencies including the Departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services. The university received an ultimatum to change discipline policies, suspend or expel protestors, ban masks, empower security with arrest authority, and restructure certain academic departments by March 20—under threat of permanent funding loss. Columbia ultimately settled for $200 million and restored funding.

George Washington University was accused by the DOJ of being “deliberately indifferent” to antisemitic harassment during spring 2024 protests, especially affecting Jewish, American-Israeli, and Israeli students and faculty, and was given a deadline of August 22 to take corrective action.

UCLA recently had $584 million in federal funding suspended over similar antisemitism-related accusations and affirmative action concerns.

Harvard University is in settlement talks over nearly $500 million in frozen federal funding, negotiating compliance with federal guidelines in exchange for restoring money. Harvard also faces a separate Title VI/IX complaint over $49 million in DEI grants, with claims of race- and sex-based discrimination.

Other institutions under investigation include Johns Hopkins, NYU, Northwestern, UC Berkeley, University of Minnesota, and USC.

---

Legal Backlash and Academic Resistance

Universities and academic organizations have begun to push back.

The AAUP has filed suit against Trump’s executive orders on DEI, calling them vague, overreaching, and chilling to speech. Some institutions, including Harvard, have resisted enforcement efforts, defending academic freedom and constitutional rights—even as they weigh risks to federal funding.

Legal experts argue that Title VI enforcement in this context may be unconstitutional if motivated by ideological suppression rather than actual antisemitism.

---

The Battle for Free Speech and Human Rights

Trump’s strategy effectively conjoins criticism of genocide and advocacy for Palestinian rights with civil rights violations—casting a chilling effect across campuses nationwide. The consequences are profound.

Academic autonomy is undermined when universities must trade institutional integrity for compliance with politically driven mandates. Student activism, especially from international and Palestinian voices, faces existential threats via visa policies and deportation tactics. Human rights accountability is sidelined when federal power is used to muzzle discourse about atrocities abroad.

---

Sources:

• Harvard, Trump Administration Near Deal for $500 Million Settlement

• Trump administration says George Washington University violated law over Jewish students, faculty

• Why Harvard Decided to Challenge Donald Trump

• Columbia University Faces Ultimatum from Trump Administration

• UCLA Funding Suspended by Trump Administration

How the State Keeps Us in Line: What Mark Neocleous Can Teach Us (Glen McGhee)

If you’ve ever been buried in student loan debt, forced into gig work, or stuck teaching college classes with no health insurance, you’ve probably felt it: the system is rigged. Not just tilted—built to keep working people down. Political theorist Mark Neocleous helps explain how that system works—not just through laws or politicians, but through the day-to-day grind of paperwork, contracts, rules, and debt.

Neocleous teaches in London, but what he writes about hits close to home for millions of people in the U.S.—especially student debtors, precarious workers, and part-time faculty. He takes aim at how the state (that is, the government and all its connected systems) doesn't just respond to what’s going on in society. It actively shapes it to keep the working class in line and protect the flow of money upward.

He calls this process political administration. That’s not about who gets elected—it’s about the boring, grinding machinery that runs things behind the scenes: who gets credentials, who gets benefits, who gets punished for stepping out of line.

According to Neocleous, political administration works in three key ways:

1. Shaping Workers to Fit the System

From public schools to community colleges to workforce training programs, the state helps produce a labor force ready to serve capital. These systems don’t ask what you want out of life—they tell you what kinds of jobs are “realistic.” The college system sells you a degree, loads you with debt, then spits you into the job market where you fight for scraps. Adjunct professors do the teaching while top administrators take home six-figure salaries.

2. Absorbing and Deflating Resistance

If you speak up—protest, organize, demand change—the system often doesn’t crack down right away. It absorbs your anger, redirects it, drowns it in red tape. Government programs and policies are designed to appear helpful, but often just delay real change. For example, income-driven repayment plans for student loans promise relief but often stretch debt for decades. As sociologist Joseph Gusfield once said, poverty isn’t just tolerated by elites—it’s managed and even used to their benefit.

3. Turning People into Legal Subjects

We’re constantly being turned into numbers, files, and categories—students, borrowers, adjuncts, renters, defendants. These labels make it easier to control us. Every time you fill out a FAFSA, sign a work contract, or negotiate with a student loan servicer, you’re entering a system designed to track and manage your behavior. It’s not about freedom—it’s about convenience and compliance for them, not you.

Neocleous builds on thinkers like Karl Marx, Michel Foucault, and Maurizio Lazzarato. But he speaks plainly about the modern reality: control doesn’t always come from cops or courts. More often, it comes from bureaucracies, contracts, and the invisible chains of debt. In his 2021 article “Debt as Pacification,” Neocleous writes that debt isn’t just about money—it’s about keeping people quiet, tired, and scared.

That’s why his work connects so strongly to people navigating today’s economy. If you’re a student loan debtor constantly checking for forgiveness news, or a professor paid $3,000 to teach a full semester, or a parent juggling three part-time jobs—you’re not failing. You’re stuck in a system that was built to keep you stuck.

Neocleous doesn’t offer false hope or easy fixes. But he offers clarity. The state isn’t a neutral actor. It works with and for capital to shape society in ways that keep working people divided, indebted, and under control.

Higher education plays a major role in this process. It promises opportunity while delivering debt. It hires armies of low-paid instructors to teach under the illusion of “prestige.” It turns students into lifelong financial subjects and workers into cheap, replaceable labor.

The fight for loan forgiveness, living wages for educators, and real job security is more than a policy fight—it’s a challenge to a system built to pacify the working class. Mark Neocleous’s work helps us understand the depth of that system so we can begin to challenge it, not just at the ballot box, but at its foundation.

Sources:

• Neocleous, Mark. The Fabrication of Social Order: A Critical Theory of Police Power. Pluto Press, 2000.

• Neocleous, Mark. The Monster of Liberalism. Open Humanities Press, 2011.

• Neocleous, Mark. “Debt as Pacification.” Journal of World-Systems Research, vol. 27, no. 2, 2021, pp. 485–502.

• Lazzarato, Maurizio. The Making of the Indebted Man: An Essay on the Neoliberal Condition. Semiotext(e), 2012.

• Lazzarato, Maurizio. Governing by Debt. Semiotext(e), 2015.

• Gusfield, Joseph R. “The Structuring of Public Behavior: The Social Uses of Poverty.” Society, vol. 12, no. 3, 1975.

• Graeber, David. The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity, and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy. Melville House, 2015.

• Block, James E. The Crucible of Consent: American Child Rearing and the Forging of Liberal Society. Harvard University Press, 2012.

Digital Minimalism Meets Climate Urgency: What Deleting Emails Teaches Higher Education Today

[Thank you Bryan Alexander for bringing this to our attention.] 

Amidst one of the driest summers in recent memory, the UK’s Environment Agency—supported by the National Drought Group—has made an unexpected appeal: delete old emails and photos. This unorthodox recommendation is not about decluttering your inbox, but about helping conserve water, underscoring how even tiny digital actions can ripple out to tangible environmental impacts.

Higher education leans heavily on the cloud: research archives, recorded lectures, sprawling email threads, and vast multimedia databases. Yet these intangible assets live in data centres—facilities infamous for their intensive water usage, as they cool servers to prevent overheating. Most large-scale cooling systems draw from public water supplies, often competing with community needs. With the AI boom accelerating data demand, these pressures are only expected to grow. The Environment Agency already warns of a looming daily water shortfall of five billion liters by 2055, without factoring in the full weight of AI-related consumption.

While deleting a single email may seem trivial, collectively such actions can lighten the burden on cooling systems at scale. That’s the principle behind the agency’s advice—small behavioral changes can aggregate into significant impact. The call to trim digital clutter comes alongside traditional water-saving steps like fixing leaks, taking shorter showers, capturing rainwater, and reducing outdoor water use.

For colleges and universities, the connection between digital behavior and resource conservation is an opportunity to model sustainability. Digital housekeeping campaigns could encourage staff and students to purge outdated files, trim redundant email chains, and archive with intent. Institutions can audit cloud storage use, revisit data retention policies, and prioritize providers that invest in energy- and water-efficient infrastructure. These choices can be paired with curriculum initiatives that make students aware of the climate–digital nexus, grounding sustainability not just in labs and gardens, but in inboxes and servers.

The call to delete emails follows England’s driest spring since 1893 and its fourth official heatwave this year, with multiple regions in drought. The National Drought Group has been meeting regularly to manage mounting water risks, including proposals for billions in investment toward new reservoirs, leak reduction, and water transfer projects. All of this reinforces a key lesson: the digital world is inseparable from the material world, and higher education can lead by aligning digital practices with environmental responsibility.

Bryan Alexander’s earlier prompts—WiFi or air conditioning? cloud storage or refrigeration?—now resonate with even more urgency. Deleting an email may not save the planet, but it’s a symbolic and practical step toward recognizing that every byte has a footprint, and every action has consequences.

---

Sources:
Delete your emails to save water during drought, says agency – The Times
UK government suggests deleting files to save water – The Verge
AI boom means regulator cannot predict future water shortages in England – The Guardian
National Drought Group meets after driest spring in 132 years – gov.uk

Two upcoming HELU events (Higher Ed Labor United)

Higher Ed Labor United (HELU) is hosting events August 14 and August 18 where you can learn about the latest attacks on higher education — and how we can fight back. HELU Open House: Thursday, August 14 at 6 PM ET / 5 CT / 4 MT / 3 PT HELU has been organizing since 2021 and is growing. This Thursday, August 14, at 6 PM ET / 5 CT / 4 MT / 3 PT we will be hosting a HELU Open House, designed to welcome folks into the national higher ed organizing space and help everyone find a way to plug in. Join HELU on Thursday, August 14th, at 6 PM ET / 5 CT/ 4 MT / 3 PT. HELU is powered by our member unions and their delegates, as well as everyone who joins in our committee work. We are looking to expand our work in response to what we know is coming over the next four years. The only way we can do that is with more capacity in HELU’s committees and campaigns. We invite you to come to the Open House to find your place within HELU.  Register for August 14 Open House here Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Bill? Higher Ed Fights Back! Monday, August 18 at 7:30 PM ET / 6:30 CT / 5:30 MT / 4:30 PT Join HELU leaders and organizers for our upcoming webinar “Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Bill: Higher Ed Fights Back” on Monday, August 18th at 7:30 PM ET / 6:30 CT / 5:30 MT / 4:30 PT. We’ll be joined by Sara Garcia, a policy analyst for Senator Bernie Sanders on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP). Sara will walk us through the parts of the bill that will affect higher education and discuss what’s possible in terms of pushing back. Thomas Gokey of the Debt Collective will discuss how the myriad changes to student lending will affect student borrowers and we will end with discussion and call to act in the fall with our colleagues across the country and fight back against the attacks on higher education in the United States. Higher ed workers – staff, faculty, university healthcare workers, facilities & maintenance workers, research assistants, academic advisors, students; in short, anyone who works on a campus – must come together as a united front to defend higher education as a public good. Higher ed must be fully-funded, with living wages and job security for everyone working on campus. We must look into the next four years with courage, determination, solidarity, and long-term strategy. Register for the August 18 webinar here. This event is closed to the press. Register for August 18 webinar here Want to support our work? Make a contribution. We invite you to support HELU's work by making a direct financial contribution. While HELU's main source of income is solidarity pledges from member organizations, these funds from individuals help us to grow capacity as we work to align the higher ed labor movement. Contribute to HELU

Stanford, Princeton, and MIT Among Top U.S. Universities Driving Global AI Research (Studocu)

• U.S. leads in global AI research with 232,000+ publications in four years, followed by China (217,000) and the UK (109,000).

• Stanford leads overall U.S. output with 12,019 AI publications; Princeton tops per-student rankings.

• MIT and Johns Hopkins achieve some of the highest global citation scores, showing far-reaching research impact

Artificial Intelligence is no longer niche. AI is reshaping a number of industries from healthcare, finance and the creative arts. To pinpoint where the most influential AI research is emerging, Studocu identified the top global universtities for computer science and analyzed their academic output.

The study analyzed the top 500 computer science institutions worldwode and cross referneced them institutions with the Semantic scholar database to see which school has been researching AI the most in recent years. It assessed the total number of peer-reviewed AI papers appearing in publications and how many times these papers were cited in other studies to reveal which institutions were driving AI research.

Global Highlights

• United States: 232,000+ AI-related publications in four years.

• China: 217,000+ publications.

• United Kingdom: Over 109,000 publications

• Australia: 92,000+ publications

The findings reveal that academia focused on researching AI is concentrated core of research powerhouses. The United States firmly in first place. U.S. institutions published over 232,000 AI-related articles in the past four years. With China closely following with 217,000 publications.

Top 10 Global Universities for AI Research

The table below ranks the leading institutions using a weighted score that factors in computer science rankings, citation impact, total publications, and per-student output. The United States leads in AI research taking seven of the spots out of the top ten.

While U.S. universities dominate the list, each has distinct strengths:

• Stanford University – Leads in total output with 12,019 AI publications and maintains a world-class Computer Science score of 93.76.

• Princeton University – Outperforms all others on a per-student basis, with 1.406 publications per enrolled student, showing exceptional research focus relative to size.

• MIT and Johns Hopkins University – Both excel in citation impact, with over 14,500 citations each from a sample of AI papers, reflecting global influence and relevance.

Dr Clare Walsh, Director of Education at the Institute of Analytics provided the following advice for those considering a career in AI Academia or in the professional world.

“There are many different roles in AI but it is not easy to break into higher salary AI jobs without suitable training. While there are a number of ‘tools’ on resumes which can help you get ahead, the soft skills are not optional. In general, we recommend anyone working with AI to have minimal ethics training and an understanding of the different technologies. In fact, some of the biggest AI research centers have a PhD as a minimum job entry requirement.”

ENDS

About Studocu:

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

Methodology

The Times Higher Education’s World University Rankings for Computer Science was used as a seedlist for the top 500 schools for computer science, which provided the overall score for the Computer Sicence ranking.
Using the Semantic Scholar API we filtered AI-related research from universities on the seedlist.
To identify AI research keywords such as “artificial intelligence,” “machine learning,” “LLM,” "generative AI" and “NLP.” Data was normalized for university size to calculate publications per enrolled student..

The final ranking was based on a weighted index:

• Computer Science average ranking (75%)

• Citation score (15%)

• Number of AI publications (5%)

• AI publications per student (5%)

Limitations: The analysis was based on the available data in the Semantic Scholar database. Keyword filtering may omit relevant work. While the Citation score was only able to research a sample of 200 peer-reviewed AI papers.

"No amount of evidence will ever convince an idiot."

"No amount of evidence will ever convince an idiot."  

The line isn’t from Mark Twain—even though it’d suit him. Twain never said it, and there’s no trace of it in his writings. But whoever coined it understood power all too well: facts alone are meaningless to those determined to ignore them. And in 2025, that truth is playing out in plain sight across American higher education.

The facts are everywhere—reports, audits, testimonies, and the lived experiences of students and educators. None of it matters to people who have decided not to care.

At Columbia University, a settlement with the Trump administration came with strings attached—strict oversight, curriculum controls, and banned diversity language—to restore frozen research funds.

UCLA found itself in the same position. Federal grants were suspended until administrators agreed to policy overhauls, including limitations on transgender student protections.

George Mason University is under investigation for alleged antisemitism, discriminatory hiring, and biased scholarships. The board responded by cutting many DEI programs despite protests from faculty and students.

At the federal level, the Trump administration is using its power to dismantle diversity programs and demand race-neutral admissions reporting. Hundreds of schools are under scrutiny, forced to comply with executive orders that critics say are tools of political coercion.

Meanwhile, Brown University and UPenn face antitrust investigations over suspected collusion in tuition pricing. The House Judiciary Committee is demanding records and threatening legislative action.

[John D. Rockefeller Library at Brown University]

And elite institutions like Cornell, Yale, and Northwestern are pouring record sums into lobbying to defend their interests while the ground shifts under them.

The facts will never be enough for those committed to pretending. They will twist them, bury them, or dismiss them entirely. And when cornered, they will change the subject.

So the fight has to be more than proof. It has to be naming names and following the money. It has to be connecting the data to real lives—students losing hope, educators barely surviving, towns left hollow. It has to be relentless pressure from coalitions that cannot be ignored.

You cannot win an argument with someone whose position is built on denial. But you can make that denial costly. You can bring the harm into the light where it cannot be hidden. You can outlast the spin.

If evidence alone won’t move them, then the truth has to be carried in voices too loud to be silenced.

---

Sources:

• US universities' settlements with Trump 'will only fuel his authoritarian appetite' – The Guardian

• Columbia: A justified surrender to Trump? – The Week

• Trump administration freezes $339 million in UCLA grants, accuses school of rights violations – NY Post

• Trump signs action forcing universities and colleges to submit admissions data – The Guardian

• George Mason University – Wikipedia

• Brown University and UPenn face tuition collusion probe – Financial Times

• Cornell’s federal lobbying surges – Cornell Sun

• Higher ed lobbying spending rises – Inside Higher Ed

What Other Countries Get Right About Education—and Why the U.S. Falls Behind

As the American education system grapples with a growing crisis—marked by student debt, political interference, declining public trust, and chronic underfunding—other countries are demonstrating alternative paths that yield better results. While the United States remains home to some of the world’s most prestigious universities, its broader education system is increasingly characterized by inequity, inefficiency, and disconnection from the labor market. In contrast, nations such as Finland, Germany, South Korea, Singapore, and Canada have implemented policies that prioritize equity, access, and workforce alignment in ways that have delivered tangible outcomes.

In Finland, public education is built around the principle of equality rather than competition. Teachers are required to hold advanced degrees and are granted significant autonomy in how they teach. Unlike the U.S., which is mired in a culture of standardized testing and punitive accountability, Finland trusts its educators and limits high-stakes assessments. Public universities in Finland are tuition-free, and students receive financial support for living expenses. The country’s emphasis on student well-being, professional respect for educators, and a curriculum that encourages critical thinking rather than rote learning makes it a global model for equitable education.

Germany offers a sharp contrast to the U.S. model of expensive higher education and weak vocational systems. Public universities are tuition-free for both domestic and international students, and the country’s dual education system blends classroom learning with paid apprenticeships. Rather than treating vocational training as a fallback option, Germany integrates it into mainstream education policy, offering real pathways to stable employment. The connection between education and labor markets is tightly managed, with active collaboration between government, industry, and unions.

South Korea and Singapore, while distinct in culture and governance, share a commitment to education as a national priority. South Korea has achieved one of the world’s highest rates of tertiary education attainment. Its students consistently perform at the top of international assessments, despite valid concerns about student stress and overwork. Singapore’s education system is centrally coordinated, with rigorous teacher training, continuous professional development, and a clear link between education outcomes and national economic planning. The city-state’s universities are heavily subsidized, and its skills-based institutions are designed in partnership with industry to meet changing economic demands.

In the Nordic countries, including Norway and Denmark, higher education is entirely tuition-free and students receive generous living stipends. The goal is not just to provide access but to ensure that students can complete their education without incurring debt. These countries invest heavily in public education across all levels, and their systems are marked by low inequality, high achievement, and strong social trust. The education system is treated as a foundation for social mobility and economic stability, rather than a competitive market.

Canada and the Netherlands offer relatively affordable higher education systems, stronger public support, and less bureaucratic complexity than the U.S. Canada, in particular, has implemented income-contingent repayment plans that are far simpler and more humane than the U.S. federal loan system. Public colleges and universities in these countries are better funded and more integrated with labor market strategies, avoiding the vast disparities seen across the American higher education landscape.

Meanwhile, the U.S. faces a fragmented system shaped by decades of disinvestment, privatization, and ideological battles over curriculum and governance. Public colleges and universities are under pressure to behave like businesses, raising tuition and relying on contingent labor. For-profit institutions have preyed on low-income and working-class students, especially veterans and single parents, with little federal oversight. Student debt has ballooned past $1.7 trillion, with no end in sight. Vocational training remains underdeveloped and stigmatized, while community colleges—despite their potential—are chronically underfunded and politically neglected.

America’s approach to education is defined more by markets than mission. The result is a system that exacerbates inequality and leaves millions of students in precarious positions, both financially and professionally. By contrast, other nations demonstrate that education can be a universal right, a public investment, and a national strategy—not just a private commodity.

It is tempting to attribute these international successes to cultural differences or smaller populations. But the truth is that many of these countries made deliberate political and economic choices to fund education fully, support students comprehensively, and plan systems around long-term social needs rather than short-term political gain. The United States has the resources to do the same. The question is whether it has the political will.

Understanding what others are doing better is not about mimicry, but about imagining what is possible. The U.S. does not lack talent, ambition, or innovation. What it lacks is a coherent vision for education that serves the many, not the few. Other countries are proving every day that another path is not only possible—it is already working.

Sources:

OECD Education at a Glance Reports

PISA 2022 Results

UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Reports

Center for American Progress

The Century Foundation

Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS)

Education International Reports on Finland and Germany