Southern New Hampshire University Layoffs: Cold Emails, Broken Promises, and the Slow Unraveling of America’s Largest Robocollege

Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU), once the darling of online education reformers and a favorite of the Obama administration, continues its quiet but relentless shedding of human labor. On Friday, June 27, 2025, roughly 60 employees were laid off without warning—no calls, no meetings, no human connection. Just a cold, impersonal email from new president Lisa Marsh Ryerson.

“There was no sincerity,” said one source familiar with the layoffs. “No real communication. Just a robotic email. No opportunity for questions, no acknowledgment of people’s service.”

This latest layoff is the third major reduction in force since 2023. And while the numbers may seem modest for an institution that claims to serve more than 160,000 students, the ripple effects are anything but small. They confirm a broader trend that SNHU insiders have been warning about for months: a once-praised institution is hollowing itself out in silence.

 
A University Without a Soul?

The June 27 layoffs, like those before them, were handled with stunning disregard for the people who built and maintained the university’s infrastructure. Staff across departments described the news as “dehumanizing,” “cold,” and “contrary to everything SNHU claims to value.” No information was provided about who was let go or why. And as of this writing, SNHU has offered no public acknowledgment.

This is the same university that advertises itself as “student-centered,” “innovative,” and “empathetic.” It appears those values stop at the edge of the marketing department.

“They preach empathy to students,” one employee noted. “But when it came to their own staff, there was none.”

 
The Robocollege Paradox

SNHU’s rise to prominence was driven by two powerful forces: automation and marketing. Often described by critics as “America’s largest robocollege,” SNHU relies on heavily automated instructional systems, pre-scripted faculty responses, and templated course shells. More than 8,000 part-time instructors serve a student body of mostly remote learners—while just 130 full-time instructors remain.

The result is a system that mimics personalization at scale, but often delivers an education that is generic, repetitive, and impersonal. Now, it seems, the internal culture is mirroring that very structure: efficient, indifferent, and inhumane.

In recent months, students have also begun to complain—about outdated materials, recycled syllabi, and lackluster engagement from instructors who are stretched thin and closely monitored. Meanwhile, internal critics point to a bloated administration where promotions are tied to personal loyalty rather than competence, and where technical expertise is often sidelined in favor of political convenience.

 
New President, Same Old Playbook

Lisa Marsh Ryerson’s appointment as SNHU’s new president was seen by some as a chance for renewal. A respected nonprofit leader and former head of AARP Foundation, Ryerson was expected to bring transparency, vision, and accountability. But her first major act—a mass layoff delivered by email—suggests a continuation of the old regime’s worst habits.

Under her predecessor Paul LeBlanc, SNHU transformed from a small regional college to a billion-dollar online giant. But that transformation was not without costs: overreliance on adjuncts, erosion of curriculum quality, and a growing divide between leadership and labor.

Ryerson’s June email—void of any opportunity for dialogue or recognition—has raised questions about whether her presidency will offer anything different, or whether SNHU’s machine-like management culture is simply too entrenched.

 
A Warning to the Sector

What’s happening at SNHU is not unique, but it is instructive. As more universities turn to online models and data-driven scalability, the human core of education is being sacrificed. Staff are seen as expendable. Adjuncts are interchangeable. And students are increasingly treated as customers rather than learners.

In this environment, SNHU has become both a symbol of possibility and a cautionary tale: a nonprofit that operates like a for-profit, with all the social costs but none of the public accountability.

The Higher Education Inquirer has been tracking SNHU’s internal crises for months:

Sept. 27, 2024: America’s Largest Robocollege Facing Resistance from Human Workers and Student Complaints About Curriculum

June 27, 2025: Layoffs at Southern New Hampshire University

These are not isolated events. They are part of a long-term unraveling of an institution that once promised transformation—but now seems trapped in its own machinery.

We will continue to report on SNHU and invite current and former employees, students, and stakeholders to share their experiences confidentially. You are not alone.

If you work at SNHU or have insider knowledge, contact the Higher Education Inquirer at gmcghee@aya.yale.edu.  All correspondence will be kept confidential.  

HBCUs and Alternative Programs Step Up for Students Affected by Job Corps Cuts

As federal budgetary constraints trigger widespread cuts to the Job Corps program, thousands of young Americans—many from low-income and marginalized backgrounds—are left in limbo, uncertain about their educational and career futures. In response, several Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and nonprofit training organizations have stepped in to provide pathways forward for these displaced students.

Morris Brown College has emerged as a leader in this emergency response, inviting students affected by the Job Corps shutdowns to apply for admission and continue their education. The college is offering federal financial aid options to eligible students, making the transition more accessible. This initiative aligns with Morris Brown’s ongoing efforts to reestablish itself as a vital access point for underserved communities following its reaccreditation.

Jarvis Christian University and Wiley University, both HBCUs in Texas, have similarly opened their doors to Job Corps students. These institutions have long histories of serving first-generation college students and have extended their outreach to ensure that affected youth can find a welcoming academic home.

Winston-Salem State University in North Carolina is taking a more targeted approach. The university has secured a grant through the Job Corps Scholars program to provide tuition assistance and job training to a select group of students. This model blends academic instruction with practical skills development, creating an effective bridge between high school-level education and gainful employment.

Beyond the HBCU community, national service programs and workforce training initiatives are also mobilizing to fill the void. AmeriCorps offers job training, GED preparation, and education awards that can be used toward college tuition. YouthBuild provides at-risk youth with the opportunity to earn a high school diploma or equivalent while learning construction skills and receiving supportive services like housing assistance.

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), a longstanding federal employment program, connects individuals with training and job placement assistance through local workforce boards. These WIOA programs are especially vital now, helping youth access industry-aligned credentialing programs.

For those looking to bypass traditional college pathways, apprenticeships and union-led training programs offer paid, on-the-job learning in skilled trades. These earn-as-you-learn models remain one of the most reliable routes to middle-class employment without taking on student loan debt.

The National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program offers another alternative, particularly for students aged 16–18 who are seeking structure, discipline, and a chance to build job and life skills in a quasi-military setting.

Several private-sector and nonprofit initiatives are also stepping into the breach. Grow with Google provides free online certificates in tech-related fields such as data analytics and IT support. SkillsUSA supports students preparing for careers in technical and skilled service sectors, often in tandem with high school or community college programs.

Year Up is a standout nonprofit that offers professional training paired with paid internships in IT, software, and finance. It targets young adults who are not enrolled in school or working, providing a powerful pipeline into white-collar careers. Likewise, Urban Alliance provides internships, mentoring, and work readiness training to high school seniors in underserved communities.

The dismantling of Job Corps centers is a major setback for a federal program that has, for decades, helped vulnerable young people achieve educational and economic stability. But in the absence of federal leadership, community institutions—especially HBCUs—are proving their enduring value. They are not only preserving access to education and training but also strengthening the broader social safety net for America’s forgotten youth.

As this transition unfolds, students and families need to remain vigilant in researching legitimate programs while avoiding scams and predatory for-profit institutions. With thoughtful guidance and continued support, the displaced Job Corps students can still find opportunities to thrive, even in uncertain times.

Sources:
U.S. Department of Labor
Morris Brown College
Winston-Salem State University
AmeriCorps.gov
YouthBuild USA
SkillsUSA
Grow with Google
National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
Year Up
Urban Alliance

“Drowning It in the Bathtub”: How the 2025 U.S. Department of Education Reorganization Fulfills Grover Norquist’s Dream (Glen McGhee)

In 2001, conservative activist Grover Norquist declared that his goal was to shrink government “to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” More than two decades later, under the leadership of Secretary Linda McMahon, the U.S. Department of Education’s March 2025 reorganization delivers on that radical vision—not with fire and fury, but with vacancies, ambiguity, and quiet institutional collapse.

Vacant Seats, Hollow Power

With dozens of senior leadership roles left vacant, enforcement functions gutted, and policymaking handed over to political allies and industry insiders, the Department no longer resembles a federal agency tasked with protecting students and public investment. Instead, it has become a hollowed-out vessel primed for deregulation, privatization, and corporate exploitation.

The new organizational chart is littered with the word “VACANT.” From Chiefs of Staff and Deputy Assistant Secretaries to senior advisors in enforcement, civil rights, and postsecondary education, entire divisions have been effectively immobilized. The Office of Civil Rights is barely staffed at the top. The Rehabilitation Services Administration is leaderless. The General Counsel’s office lacks oversight in key regulatory areas. This is not streamlining—it is strategic self-sabotage.

Federal Student Aid (FSA), overseeing over $1.5 trillion in loans, is run by an acting chief. Critical offices such as the Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) are fragmented, missing key leadership across multiple branches—especially those charged with accreditation, innovation, and borrower protections.

The Kent Controversy: A Symptom of Systemic Rot

The collapse of federal oversight is not only evident in the vacancies—it is also embodied in controversial political appointments. As education policy watchdog David Halperin has reported, the Trump administration’s nominee for Under Secretary of Education, Nicholas Kent, epitomizes the revolving door between the Department of Education and the for-profit college industry.

Kent’s career includes roles at Education Affiliates, which in 2015 paid $13 million to settle a Department of Justice case involving false claims for federal student aid, and later at Career Education Colleges and Universities (CECU), the lobbying group for the for-profit college sector. Under Kent’s policy leadership at CECU, the organization actively fought against borrower defense rules, gainful employment regulations, and other safeguards meant to protect students from exploitative educational institutions.

Despite this record, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee advanced Kent’s nomination on May 22, 2025, in a party-line 12–11 vote—without a hearing. HELP Ranking Member Bernie Sanders objected, saying, “In my view, we should not be confirming the former lobbyist that represented for-profit colleges.” Advocates, including Halperin and six education justice organizations, sent a letter to Chairman Bill Cassidy calling for public scrutiny of Kent’s background and the Trump administration’s destructive higher education agenda.

Among their concerns are the elimination of key enforcement staff and research arms at the Department, the cancellation of ongoing research contracts, the rollback of borrower defense and gainful employment protections, the $37 million fine reversal against Grand Canyon University for deceptive practices, and the Department’s silence on accreditation reform and oversight of predatory schools. These developments, the letter argued, mark a decisive return to the era of unchecked corporate education—where taxpayer dollars are funneled to dubious institutions and students are left with mountains of debt and worthless credentials.

“Mission Accomplished” for the Privatization Movement

This version of the Department of Education, stripped of its regulatory muscle and stocked with industry sympathizers, is not an accident. It’s the culmination of decades of libertarian, neoliberal, and religious-right agitation to disempower public education. The policy pipeline now flows directly from organizations like the Heritage Foundation and ALEC to appointed officials with deep ties to the industries they were once charged with policing.

Rather than serving the public, the department’s primary role now appears to be facilitating the private sector’s conquest of higher education—through deregulation, outsourcing, and the erosion of civil rights protections.

A Shrinking Federal Presence, an Expanding Crisis

The consequences are far-reaching. Marginalized students—Black, brown, low-income, first-generation, disabled—depend disproportionately on federal guarantees, oversight, and funding. As these protections recede, so too does their access to meaningful educational opportunity. Instead, they are increasingly funneled into high-debt, low-return programs or shut out entirely.

Meanwhile, the political vacuum left by this strategic dismantling is being filled by corporate actors, right-wing religious institutions, and profit-seeking "ed-tech" startups. The dream of public education as a democratic equalizer is being replaced by a market of extraction and exploitation.

The Dream Realized

Grover Norquist’s fantasy of drowning the government has now been partially fulfilled in the U.S. Department of Education. What remains is an agency in name only—a shell that no longer enforces its core mission. In the name of efficiency and deregulation, the department has abandoned millions of students and ceded its authority to those who view education as a commodity rather than a public right.

The danger now is not only what’s been lost, but what is being built in its place. The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to monitor the ongoing capture of education policy and fight for a system that serves students, not shareholders.

Sources:

U.S. Department of Education, Organizational Chart, March 17, 2025
David Halperin, Republic Report, “The Senate Shouldn’t Vote on Trump Higher Education Pick without a Hearing”
U.S. Department of Justice press releases on Education Affiliates
Politico Pro Education updates, May 2025
Senate HELP Committee voting record, May 22, 2025
Heritage Foundation and CECU policy recommendations

Future Scenarios: A Post-College America (Glen McGhee)

By 2035, the traditional American college system may be a relic of the past. A variety of forces—economic, technological, demographic, and cultural—are converging to transform the landscape of higher learning. Grounded in Papenhausen's cyclical model of institutional change, current data and trends suggest a plausible future in which college campuses no longer serve as the central hubs of postsecondary education. Instead, a more fragmented, skills-based, and economically integrated system may rise in its place.

Since 2010, college enrollment in the U.S. has declined by 8.5%, with more than a million fewer students than before the COVID-19 pandemic. Over 80 colleges have closed or merged since 2020, and many experts forecast a sharp acceleration in closures, especially as the so-called “demographic cliff” reduces the pool of traditional-age college students. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia projects a potential 142% increase in annual college closures by the end of the decade.

This institutional unraveling is not solely demographic. Federal disinvestment in research and financial aid, rising tuition (up more than 1,500% since the late 1970s), and increasing underemployment among recent graduates are undermining the perceived and actual value of a college degree. Emerging technologies, particularly AI, are rapidly changing the ways people learn and the skills employers seek. Meanwhile, the proliferation of fake degrees and credential fraud further erodes trust in conventional academic institutions.

In response to these destabilizing trends, four future scenarios offer possible replacements for the traditional college system. Each reflects different combinations of technological advancement, labor market shifts, and institutional evolution.

The Corporate Academy Landscape envisions a future in which large companies like Google, Amazon, and IBM take the lead in educating the workforce. Building on existing certificate programs, these corporations establish their own academies, offering industry-aligned training and credentials. Apprenticeships and on-the-job learning become the primary paths to employment, with digital badges and blockchain-secured micro-credentials replacing degrees. Corporate campuses cluster in major urban centers, while rural areas develop niche training programs related to local industries such as agriculture and renewable energy.

In The Distributed Learning Networks scenario, education becomes fully decentralized. Instead of enrolling in a single institution, learners access personalized instruction through AI-powered platforms, community-based workshops, and online mentorships. Local libraries, maker spaces, and co-working hubs evolve into core educational environments. Learning is assessed through portfolios and real-world projects rather than grades or standardized exams. Regional expertise clusters develop organically, especially in smaller cities and towns with existing community infrastructure.

The Guild Renaissance looks to the past to shape the future. Modeled on pre-industrial apprenticeship systems, professional guilds re-emerge as gatekeepers of career development. These organizations handle training, credentialing, and job placement in sectors such as healthcare, construction, technology, and the arts. Hierarchical systems guide individuals from novice to expert, and regional economies specialize around guild-supported industries. Employment becomes tightly integrated with ongoing learning, minimizing the traditional gap between school and work.

Finally, The Hybrid Workplace University scenario grows out of the shift to remote and hybrid work. With more than one-third of workers expected to remain partially remote, workplaces themselves become learning environments. Education is embedded in professional workflows through VR training, modular courses, and flexible scheduling. As access to learning becomes geographically unrestricted, rural and underpopulated areas may see renewed vitality as remote workers seek lower-cost, higher-quality living environments.

Despite their differences, these scenarios share several transformational themes. Economically, resources formerly directed toward campus infrastructure are redirected toward skills training, research hubs, and community development. Culturally, the notion of lifelong learning becomes normalized, and credentials become more transparent, practical, and verifiable. Socially, traditional notions of campus life give way to professional and civic identity tied to industry specialization or community engagement.

The evolution of quality assurance is also noteworthy. Traditional accreditation may give way to employer-driven standards, market-based performance indicators, and digital verification technologies. Blockchain and competency-based evaluations offer more direct and trustworthy assessments of ability and readiness for employment.

Geographically, these changes will reshape communities in different ways. Former college towns must navigate economic transitions, potentially reinventing themselves as hubs for innovation or remote work. Urban areas may thrive as centers of corporate education and research. Rural regions may find new purpose through specialized training programs aligned with local resources and culture.

If these trends continue, the benefits could be substantial: reduced student debt, more direct paths to employment, faster innovation, and greater regional economic diversity. But challenges remain. The loss of traditional university research infrastructure may hinder long-term scientific progress. Access to elite training may increasingly depend on corporate affiliation, potentially limiting social mobility and excluding those without early access to professional networks. The liberal arts and humanities—once central to American higher education—may struggle to find footing in this new paradigm.

In the broad view, these emerging models reflect a shift away from institutional prestige and toward demonstrable competence. The change is not only educational but societal, redefining what it means to learn, to work, and to belong. Whether this transformation leads to a more inclusive and efficient system or deepens existing inequities will depend on how these new models are regulated, supported, and adapted to public needs.

By 2035, the American educational system may no longer be anchored to age-segregated campuses and debt-financed degrees. Instead, it may revolve around pragmatic, lifelong pathways—deeply integrated with the labor market, shaped by regional strengths, and responsive to continuous technological change.

Sources:

1. National Student Clearinghouse Research Center

2. U.S. Department of Education

3. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia
   4–5. National Center for Education Statistics
   6–9. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index
   10–11. Federal Reserve Bank of New York
   12–13. McKinsey & Co., World Economic Forum
   14–16. U.S. Department of Justice, Accrediting Agencies
   17–19. Company Reports (Google, IBM, Amazon, Apple)
   20–21. U.S. Department of Labor
   22–24. Credential Engine, World Bank, Blockchain in Education Conference

4. Burning Glass Institute
   26–29. EdTech Reports, OECD, Pew Research Center
   30–31. National Apprenticeship Survey
   32–34. Gallup, Stanford Remote Work Project

5. UNESCO Blockchain for Education Report

Harvard Faculty Union Threatens Resistance to Any Deal with Trump Administration

Faculty at Harvard University are warning that they will "strongly oppose" any agreement the university might strike with the Trump administration regarding ongoing threats to federal funding and alleged civil rights violations. The Harvard chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), representing more than 300 faculty members, issued the warning amid secretive negotiations between Harvard leadership and federal officials.

In recent months, the Trump administration has escalated efforts to discipline elite universities, accusing Harvard of failing to protect Jewish students and violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The Department of Education has threatened to withhold all federal funding from the university, a move that could disrupt billions of dollars in research and student aid. While Harvard has filed suit to block the funding cuts, concerns have emerged that university leaders may quietly negotiate a settlement to avoid further political retaliation.

Harvard faculty say they were not consulted about the negotiations and reject any deal that would compromise academic freedom, institutional autonomy, or faculty governance. Kirsten Weld, president of the AAUP chapter, told the Boston Globe that “the red line of academic freedom… has already been crossed” if administrators are making decisions without full faculty participation. Professor of Classics Richard Thomas emphasized that any arrangement that gives the government influence over curriculum, hiring, or research is unacceptable, stating, “I expect that the AAUP and the faculty will react very strongly against any sort of deal.”

The AAUP’s position is backed by a recent survey reported by The Harvard Crimson, showing that 71 percent of responding faculty oppose any agreement with the Trump administration, while 98 percent support Harvard’s legal efforts to block the federal funding freeze. The faculty response reflects not only opposition to political interference, but also frustration with what they see as a lack of transparency from Harvard’s top leadership.

The university's conflict with the federal government began after the administration accused Harvard and other elite schools of fostering environments hostile to Jewish students, citing demonstrations and social media posts in the wake of the Israel-Gaza conflict. Critics argue that these investigations are politically motivated and designed to suppress speech critical of U.S. foreign policy or Israeli actions. By threatening to cut off Title IV funds and research grants, the administration is leveraging unprecedented financial pressure on higher education institutions.

Harvard’s AAUP chapter, like others formed in recent years, lacks formal collective bargaining rights under U.S. labor law. But its members are prepared to organize using petitions, public pressure, and other means of faculty protest. As universities become central targets in broader culture wars, the line between political influence and academic control continues to blur. Faculty organizers view this moment as a test case not only for Harvard’s values, but for the future of academic freedom across the country.

For the Higher Education Inquirer, which has long stood in support of labor rights and academic self-governance, this case highlights the growing need for faculty and student workers to assert their roles in shaping institutional responses to political coercion. Whether Harvard’s leadership will listen to its faculty remains to be seen. But the message from the AAUP is clear: any backroom deal with the federal government that sacrifices core academic principles will face fierce and public opposition.

Sources
The Boston Globe, July 6, 2025: “Harvard professor union will ‘strongly’ oppose any deal between school and Trump, members say”
The Harvard Crimson, July 2025: “Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump Administration, Survey Finds”
The Washington Post, April 21, 2025: “Harvard sues the Trump administration in escalating confrontation”
Politico, April 17, 2025: “The Ivy League resistance is just getting started”

The Professor is In, 2nd Edition (Karen Kelsky)

Help The Second Edition Come Out This Fall!

By Karen Kelsky | July 1, 2025

PLEASE READ: 2nd Edition Book News and Promotion

I just got word that the second edition of The Professor Is In book – orig. planned for September – might be *delayed*!

It can’t ship out until we sell the extra inventory of the 1st edition that is still on hand at Amazon, Random House, and other sellers (about 2000 copies).

I REALLY want the second edition to come out Fall 2025 in time for its 10th anniversary, so I’m running a special promotion!

If you buy 100 (new) copies of the first edition (ie, the one that’s on sale now at Amazon, Random House, etc.) I will do a FREE 1 hour virtual talk for your department or program on any aspect of the academic or post-academic job search, grant writing, book proposals, or any other topic in my repertoire.

If you buy 200 new copies, I’ll do a full 1.5 hour virtual talk!

//Rest assured, the actual job search advice content is virtually unchanged between the two editions! So the first edition remains 100% effective for anyone seeking an academic job in 2025. (For reference, the big difference in the second ed., is in the wider contextualization of this advice – deteriorating conditions of academic labor, attacks on tenure and DEI, considerations for marginalized job seekers around issues of disability, gay and trans identity, BIPOC identity, and mental illness and neurodivergency, making the decision to leave, and above all, prioritizing your personal health and well-being). The one chapter of advice that has been entirely rewritten is the one on “What to Wear”, and I’m happy to send along pdfs of that chapter to anyone who participates in this promotion and wants the updated fashion advice!//

But wait, there’s more! 🙂

If you buy 50 books, I will do a 30 minute Q & A with your class or program.

If you buy 25, I’ll give you a discounted rate for a virtual or in person talk.

And if you buy 1 to 10 copies, send me the receipt (at gettenure@gmail.com) and I’ll put you in a drawing for a free suite of services – editing your job or grant documents, doing a zoom consultation with me, etc. – worth $500! You will get as many entries as copies you buy, up to 10.

Of course, if you’re a Dean or Provost and want to buy 1000+ copies for all the grad students in your college … well, DM me and let’s talk! I’d be glad to reciprocate in some big way that benefits your program.

Thanks, and please share widely! I hope together we can get this done!

Filed Under: Academic Job Search, Alt-University Critique, Marginalized Voices, Mental Health and Academia, Post-Ac Job Search

Blue Falcons: Politicians, Government Agencies, and Nonprofits Serve Themselves, Not Those Who Have Served

“Blue Falcon”—military slang for a “Buddy F****r”—refers to someone who betrays their comrades to get ahead. It’s a fitting label for disgraced U.S. Congressman Duncan Hunter, a Marine Corps veteran convicted of misusing campaign funds while cloaking himself in patriotic rhetoric. But Hunter isn’t alone. He’s emblematic of a broader betrayal—one that involves politicians, bureaucrats, predatory schools, and veteran-serving nonprofits. Together, they form an ecosystem where self-interest thrives, and veterans are left behind.

Despite endless platitudes about “supporting our troops,” the systems designed to serve veterans—especially in education—are failing. Two of the most generous and ambitious benefits ever created for veterans, the Post-9/11 GI Bill (PGIB) and Department of Defense Tuition Assistance (TA), are now riddled with waste, abuse, and profiteering. The real beneficiaries aren’t veterans, but an extensive network of for-profit colleges, lobbying firms, and institutions that exploit them.

---

The GI Bill and DOD Tuition Assistance: A Pipeline for Predators

The Post-9/11 GI Bill was supposed to be a transformative benefit—a way to reward veterans with the chance to reintegrate, retrain, and succeed in the civilian world. At more than $13 billion annually, it is the single most generous higher education grant program in the country. According to a report highlighted by Derek Newton in Forbes, the GI Bill now costs more than all state scholarships and grants combined and represents half of all Pell Grant spending.

And yet, it isn’t working.

A groundbreaking study from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)—conducted by researchers from Texas A&M, the University of Michigan, Dartmouth, William & Mary, and even the U.S. Department of the Treasury—delivers a scathing indictment of the program’s effectiveness. According to the report, veterans who used PGIB benefits actually earned less nine years after separating from the military than peers who didn’t attend college at all. The researchers found:

“The PGIB reduced average annual earnings nine years after separation from the Army by $900 (on a base of $32,000). Under a variety of conservative assumptions, veterans are unlikely to recoup these reduced earnings during their working careers.”

The reason? Too many veterans are enrolling in heavily marketed, low-value schools—institutions that offer little return and often leave students without degrees or meaningful credentials. Veterans from lower-skilled military occupations and those with lower test scores were particularly likely to fall into this trap. These “less advantaged” veterans not only saw worse labor market outcomes but were more likely to spend their GI Bill benefits at for-profit schools with dismal outcomes.

Even worse, the report estimated that the cost to taxpayers for every additional marginal bachelor’s degree produced by PGIB is between $486,000 and $590,000. That’s beyond inefficient—it’s exploitative.

In the Forbes article we put it bluntly:

“This is sad to say, that the GI Bill does not work for many servicemembers, veterans and their families. What's even sadder is that if you drill into the data, to the institutional and program level, it will likely be worse. There are many programs, for-profit and non-profit, that do not work out for servicemembers, veterans, and their families.”

---

Tuition Assistance and the DOD’s Open Wallet

The Department of Defense’s Tuition Assistance program also faces exploitation. With few controls, it serves as an open faucet for bad actors who aggressively recruit active-duty service members through deceptive advertising, partnerships with base education offices, and endorsements from shady nonprofits. Just as with the GI Bill, predatory institutions see DOD TA not as an education resource, but as a predictable stream of federal cash.

Military leadership has done little to intervene. The same institutions flagged for fraud and poor outcomes continue to operate freely, bolstered by industry lobbyists and revolving-door influence in Washington.

---

Nonprofits and Politicians: Wolves in Patriotic Clothing

The betrayal doesn’t stop with colleges. Many large veteran-serving nonprofits and “military-friendly” initiatives exist more for image than impact. Instead of helping veterans, they prop up harmful systems and launder legitimacy for the very institutions exploiting the military community.

Meanwhile, Congress talks a big game but routinely fails to act. Lawmakers from both parties show up for ribbon cuttings and Veterans Day speeches, but many take campaign donations from subprime colleges and education conglomerates that prey on veterans. They refuse to close known loopholes—like the infamous 90/10 rule—that incentivize for-profit schools to chase GI Bill funds with deceptive tactics.

And all the while, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)—underfunded, overburdened, and politically manipulated—struggles to provide the basic services veterans were promised.

---

A Sad Reality, and a Call to Action

It’s a bitter irony that programs designed to lift up veterans often lead them into deeper debt, poorer job prospects, and wasted years. The data from NBER, the findings from watchdogs like Derek Newton, and the lived experience of thousands of veterans all point to one conclusion: the Post-9/11 GI Bill, as currently administered, is failing. And so is the broader system around it.

Veterans deserve better. They deserve:

• Strict oversight of predatory colleges and training programs

• Transparency in outcomes for veteran-serving nonprofits

• Accountability from lawmakers and government agencies

• Equitable investment in public and community college options

• A fundamental shift from patriotic lip service to real systemic reform

Until then, the Blue Falcons will continue to circle—posing as allies while feasting on the very benefits veterans fought to earn.

---

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue exposing the policies, institutions, and individuals who exploit veterans under the guise of service. If you have insider information or want to share your story, contact us confidentially at gmcghee@aya.yale.edu.

A House Divided...

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Abraham Lincoln’s immortal words—delivered at a time of profound crisis—speak volumes to the United States of 2025. We are again a nation splintering at its foundations. Not only is the Trump administration’s 2025 spending bill a cruel redistribution of wealth and opportunity, but it is also a calculated assault on national cohesion. By pitting group against group, and widening already-existing chasms, this legislation weakens the country from within.

It worsens every major divide in American life:

Young and Old
This bill undermines the future of young people by defunding public education, freezing Pell Grant expansion, and dismantling student loan protections. Meanwhile, it offers little to nothing to the aging population—cutting health and housing programs while privatizing services they depend on. Instead of investing in generational cooperation, the bill fuels resentment: older voters blamed for electing regressive leaders, younger generations accused of entitlement. Both groups suffer—but separately.

Rich and Poor
At its core, the bill is a brutal act of class warfare. It strips federal protections and benefits from working-class families while expanding tax loopholes for the wealthy and funding corporate subsidies. The working poor lose access to healthcare, clean air and water, education, and social safety nets. The rich get richer—and more powerful. The wealth gap, already obscene, becomes insurmountable. Billionaires buy colleges, elections, and media narratives while everyday Americans lose homes, degrees, and dignity.

Men and Women
By slashing childcare funding, defunding reproductive healthcare, and threatening Title IX protections, the spending bill deepens the economic and social vulnerabilities of women, especially single mothers and women of color. Meanwhile, men, too, are left in precarious labor markets with fewer public supports and more pressure to conform to toxic models of masculinity peddled by reactionary forces. The bill ignores gender inequality while encouraging cultural backlashes, deepening mistrust between the sexes.

White, Black, and Brown
The racial fault lines of American life are carved even deeper by this legislation. Black and Brown communities, long targets of systemic disinvestment, will face cuts in education, public health, housing, and environmental protections. Latinx families lose protections for immigrant students and face heightened surveillance. Native American communities see treaty responsibilities ignored yet again. White working-class families, while nominally courted by nationalist rhetoric, are left materially worse off—offered culture war instead of clean water and decent jobs.

The Trump budget does not unite Americans; it divides them more efficiently. It weaponizes identity and scarcity—turning natural allies into enemies and stoking civil conflict not with guns but with spreadsheets.

This is not accidental. In a 2022 interview, we warned about the growing possibility of colleges being drawn into “both sides of a Second U.S. Civil War between Christian Fundamentalists and neoliberals.” In such a conflict, we said, “working families will take the largest hit.” That warning now feels prophetic. Colleges are already caught in the ideological crossfire, serving either the nationalist right or the neoliberal consulting class—while student debt and academic labor exploitation grow on both sides.

This bill isn't just a financial document. It's a manifesto for a new Gilded Age, where working people are left to fight one another over crumbs while billionaires hoard the pie.

Higher education, which once promised upward mobility and civic understanding, has been transformed into a marketplace of credentials, surveillance, and extraction. The 2025 Trump bill accelerates this, cutting off pathways to opportunity while protecting the interests of robocolleges, shady lenders, and digital monopolies.

The house is burning. And if we do not find a way to build solidarity across these divisions—young and old, rich and poor, Black and white, men and women—we will fall, not as tribes, but as a nation.

Sources:

• Interview with Dahn Shaulis, College Viability (2022)

• Congressional Budget Office, Trump 2025 Budget Analysis

• National Student Legal Defense Network

• American Council on Education, Pell Grant and Loan Data

• U.S. Department of Education: Title IX and regulatory changes

• Clean Energy for America Coalition

• U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Education and Tribal Funding Reports

• Higher Education Inquirer investigations on robocolleges, edtech profiteering, and student debt

Will Maximus and Its Subsidiary AidVantage See Cuts?

Maximus Inc., the parent company of federal student loan servicer Aidvantage, is facing growing financial and existential threats as the Trump administration completes a radical budget proposal that would slash Medicaid by hundreds of billions of dollars and cut the U.S. Department of Education in half. These proposed changes could gut the very federal contracts that have fueled Maximus's revenue and investor confidence over the last two decades. Once seen as a steady player in the outsourcing of public services, Maximus now stands at the edge of a political and technological cliff.

The proposed Trump budget includes a plan to eliminate the Office of Federal Student Aid and transfer the $1.6 trillion federal student loan portfolio to the Small Business Administration. This proposed restructuring would remove Aidvantage and other servicers from their current roles, replacing them with yet-unnamed alternatives. While Maximus has profited enormously from servicing loans through Aidvantage—one of the major federal loan servicers—it is unclear whether the company has any role in this new Trump-led student loan regime. The SBA, which lacks experience managing consumer lending and repayment infrastructure, could subcontract to politically favored firms or simply allow artificial intelligence to replace human collectors altogether.

This possibility is not far-fetched. A 2023 study by Yale Insights explored how AI systems are already outperforming human debt collectors in efficiency, compliance, and scalability. The report examined the growing use of bots to handle borrower communication, account resolution, and payment tracking. These developments could render Maximus’s human-heavy servicing model obsolete. If the federal government shifts toward automated collection, it could bypass Maximus entirely, either through privatized tech-driven firms or through internal platforms that require fewer labor-intensive contracts.

On the health and human services side of the business, Maximus is also exposed. The company has long served as a contractor for Medicaid programs across several states, managing call centers and eligibility support. But with Medicaid facing potentially devastating cuts in the proposed Trump budget, Maximus’s largest and most stable contracts could disappear. The company’s TES-RCM division has already shown signs of unraveling, with anonymous reports suggesting a steep drop-off in clients and the departure of long-time employees. One insider claimed, “Customers are dropping like flies as are longtime employees. Not enough people to do the little work we have.”

Remote Maximus employees are also reporting layoffs and instability, particularly in Iowa, where 34 remote workers were terminated after two decades of contract work on state Medicaid programs. Anxiety is spreading across internal forums and layoff boards, as workers fear they may soon be out of a job in a shrinking and increasingly automated industry. Posts on TheLayoff.com and in investor forums indicate growing unease about the company’s long-term viability, particularly in light of the federal budget priorities now taking shape in Washington.

While Maximus stock (MMS) continues to trade with relative strength and still appears profitable on paper, it is increasingly reliant on government spending that may no longer exist under a Trump administration intent on dismantling large parts of the federal bureaucracy. If student loan servicing is eliminated, transferred, or automated, and Medicaid contracts dry up due to funding cuts, Maximus could lose two of its biggest revenue streams in a matter of months. The company’s contract with the Department of Education, once seen as a long-term asset, may become a political liability in a system being restructured to reward loyalty and reduce regulatory oversight.

The question now is not whether Maximus will be forced to downsize—it already is—but whether it will remain a relevant player in the new federal landscape at all. As artificial intelligence, austerity, and ideological realignment converge, Maximus may be remembered less for its dominance and more for how quickly it became unnecessary.

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue tracking developments affecting federal student loan servicers, government contractors, and the broader collapse of the administrative state.

Corruption, Fraud and Scandal at Los Angeles Community College District, Part 2 (LACCD Whistleblower)

[Editor's note: The first installment of Corruption, Fraud and Scandal at Los Angeles Community College District is here.]

“HR has been weaponized against our faculty for speaking out and complaining about discrimination.” This was a public comment made by Los Angeles Community College District Academic Senate President Angela Echeverri at the March 2025 Meeting of the LACCD Board of Trustees.

Echeverri’s remarks were not isolated either and were echoed by Deborah Harrington (California Community Colleges’ Success Network Executive Director), “Our HR leadership is not living up to the standards that we deserve. Our members remain quite frustrated.” More reporting can be read in Pierce College student newspaper ‘The RoundUp’ and LACCD Youtube Live-Streamed meetings.

These accusations come three years after longtime administrator Annie G. Reed (Annie Goldman Reed) left her position as Omsbudsman/Associate Dean of Students at Los Angeles Valley College was promoted to Interim Dean of Employee and Labor Relations collecting an annual salary of $284,935.00 in pay and benefits in 2022 according to Transparent California last year of reporting.

A survey of public records including news articles, lawsuits, accreditation complaints, and emails to show that Annie G. Reed has a long history of this sort of behavior across multiple LACCD campuses – going back to the 2000s. 

In an October 27, 2010 article ‘Grade Grievances Give Students Voice’ by Lucas Thompson in ‘The Los Angeles Valley Star’ Annie G. Reed is quoted as cautioning students against using their rights to challenge unfair grades stating, “It’s worthwhile if a student really thinks they have the proof to forward with the process . . . It’s their right to, [but] we don’t encourage frivolous [cases], because that’s a waste of college resources.” 

The article further quoted disgraced ex-College President Sue Carleo who left the institution in 2013, with the College finances in the red and on Warning Status with the Accreditation Commission of Junior and Community Colleges. Carleo warned that students should simply view mis-grading as “Human Error.” (https://archive.org/details/cavgchm_002210/mode/2up? q=Annie+Reed+LAVC)

When the ACJCC placed Los Angeles Valley College on Accreditation Warning it cited multiple standards violations and specifically;

College Recommendation 5:

To fully meet the Standards, the college should ensure that records of complaints are routinely maintained as required by the Policy on Student and Public Complaints Against Institutions (Standards II.B.2, II.B.2.c, II.B.3.a, II.B.4)

This came after Annie G. Reed failed to have student records or complaints available for inspection to the visiting Accreditation Team.

 Three years later Reed was again in hot water when a student filed an Accreditation Complaint in June 2016, specifically documenting multiple faculty members in the Los Angeles Valley College Media Arts Department engaging in fraud and deceptive practices – supported by sixty pages of documentation.

The complaint further stated that Reed refused to facilitate student complaints as was her role and threatened action for ‘disrupting the peace of the campus’ by making complaints. This was followed by a second accreditation complaint by another student regarding the same issues and a student Facebook Group discussing issues.

Reed’s response was to suspend the first student running a smear campaign that he was potential active shooter citing the complaints he brought, suspend a thirty-year old single mother in the Facebook Group for Academic dishonesty after she forgot to have a college transcript from when she was eighteen-years old sent to LAVC, and then threatened the second student who brought an Accreditation Complaint for vandalizing school property.

[Below: Text exchange between LACCD students alleging that administrator Annie Reed created a smear campaign against them.]

Student 1 was suspended for a year (though not expelled by the Board of Trustees after investigation) a semester short of graduating. Student 1 would have earned six associate degrees and eight occupational certificates. Student 2, was ordered to pay a substantial amount of financial aid back to the college as “restitution.” Several months later, she was subjected to a reversal of hours by LAVC Grant Director Dan Watanabe in the Media Arts Department, for a campus job she worked and ordered to pay back several thousand dollars. Student 3 ended up going to Los Angeles City College to take final classes needed to graduate and was nearly refused graduation by Department Chair Eric Swelstad.

These actions also happened right before and after LAVC Media Arts Faculty Eric Swelstad, Chad Sustin, Adrian Castillo, Dan Watanabe, and LAVC President Erika Endrijonas lobbied the LACCD Board of Trustees to approve construction of a new Media Arts Building that was later reported by The Los Angeles Times to be a massive racketeering scheme – Aug 4, 2022, Teresa Watanabe, ‘Corruption and fraud beset long-delayed L.A. Valley college theater project, lawsuit alleges.’ (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-08-04/corruption-alleged-in-long delayed-la-valley-college-theater-project) 

These actions mirrored the treatment of a student who sued LAVC’s Media Arts Department in 2009, alleging the same type of fraud and misconduct by nearly all the same Department Faculty.

Enrique Caraveo vs Los Angeles Valley College, Eric Swelstad, Joseph D’Accurso, Arantxia Rodriguez, Dennis J. Reed among others. Filing Date: 05/18/2009 (https://unicourt.com/case/ca la2-enrique-caraveo-vs-los-angeles-valley-college-et-al-621337)

In that case, Caraveo stated:

46. When plaintiff complained about the above referenced matters, Swelstad and other Valley College officials retaliated against plaintiff by refusing to grant him a Certificate and creating a hostile learning environment for him in class.

47. On or around June 2007 plaintiff satisfied the requirements to get a Cinema Arts Production Certificate (“Certificate”) at Valley College.

54. On or about October 2008, Swelstad denied plaintiff the certificate via a letter even though plaintiff has fulfilled the requirements to get the Certificate.

55. On or about October 13, 2008, plaintiff notified Delahoussaye and Reed that plaintiff had fulfilled all requirements for the Certificate and that they should take care of the matter as soon as possible. On or about October 13, 2008, Yasmin Delahoussaye and Dennis Reed denied request.”

Dennis Reed, was at the time the Dean over the Media Arts Department and the husband of Annie G. Reed. Dennis Reed was later profiled in LAist Magazine on April 27, 2016 article ‘Jerk Driver Who Ran Cyclists Off Glendale Road Charged With Assault, Lying To Police’ (https:// laist.com/news/justice-delivered-almost)

 More to the point – Dennis Reed also oversaw a grant program at Los Angeles Valley College Media Arts Department known as IDEAS – Institute for Developing Entertainment Arts and Studies at LAVC. The Grant was run by Dan Watanabe. (https://archive.org/details/ cavgchm_002241/mode/2up?q=Annie+Reed+LAVC)

 Watanabe was also named in the Accreditation Complaint for Wage Theft, Improper use of funds and fraud in the successor grant ICT Doing What Matters, due to the college receiving Grant Money but immediately eliminating the curriculum the grant application said they would provide and like Caraveo’s complaint not providing in class training or labs. The complaints to Accreditation and the LACCD Personnel Commission by students also questioned the legitimacy of a number of professional experts, including Robert Reber – who was listed as both a ‘student worker’ and ‘professional expert’ in 2008. Student 1 further provided evidence to both that Dan Watanabe had asked him to falsify his resume claiming fictitious jobs and cited an employee in the LAVC Payroll office as being behind it (that employee immediately denied it and Student 1 refused).

Dennis Reed had also spent years lobbying for the approval of the VACC building – unsuccessfully.

In short, Annie G. Reed’s retaliation and cover-up in 2016, may have been to help realize her husband’s failed building project as well as preemptively shutdown any investigations or audits that might trigger further scrutiny regarding how the IDEAS Grant was administered under his time as area Dean.

Reed’s behavior of covering up abusive behavior towards members of the LACCD Community was also not limited to retaliation against students.

In 2017, then LACCD Board President Andra Hoffman accused former Board President Scott Svonkin of abusive behavior and demanded sanctions. According to an article in the Los Angeles Daily News, ‘LA Community College board postpones sanction hearing vote against former 4 president’ August 28, 2017, Annie G. Reed again inserted herself into the matter to cover-up for Svonkin.

“The allegations do not strike me as related to governing and seem best suited for mediation,” said Annie Reed, a district employee for 22 years and a representative of Teamsters Local 911. “I don’t ever recall a time, or a place, where he has treated his colleagues poorly.”

Others disagreed, including two former women board members who did not speak at the downtown meeting.

They said Hoffman’s critics — who they said weren’t present during the abuse — had a tendency to blame the victim, while ignoring Svonkin’s allegedly brusque treatment of employees.” (https://www.dailynews.com/2017/07/13/la-community-college-board-postpones-sanction hearing-vote-against-former-president/)

Her behavior is further documented in a series of lawsuits against the LACCD District. 

Filed October 03, 2024 Dr. Christiana Baskaran (Plaintiff), Linda Silva; Dr. Ruth Dela Cruz, Dr. Adriana Portugal, vs LACCD (including defendant Annie Reed). (https://trellis.law/doc/ 219882998/complaint-filed-by-dr-christiana-baskaran-plaintiff-linda-silva-plaintiff-dr-ruth-dela cruz-plaintiff-et-al-as-to-los-angeles-community-college-district-defendant-board-trustees-los angeles-community-college-district-defendant-los-angeles-c)

“[other defendants] Annie Reed to discriminate against female faculty and staff, refused to investigate immediately or to take preventative action. Then Defendants and EMPLOYER DEFENDANTS retaliated against PLAINTIFFS and others to try and prevent them from complaining to authorities. When PLAINTIFFS opposed these illegal practices, they continued to retaliate against them.”

24. As set forth herein, ALL Defendants were officers, agents. Defendants and directly or indirectly used or attempt to use their official authority or influence for the purpose of intimidating, threatening, coercing, commanding, or attempting to intimidate, threaten, coerce, or command PLAINTIFF and others for the purpose of interfering with the right of that person to disclose to an official agent matters within the scope of this article. EMPLOYER DEFENDANTS aided and abetted MARY GALLAGHER, ARMANDO RIVERA-FIGUEROA, ANN HAMILTON, JAMES LANCASTER, JOCELYN SIMPSON, JIM LANCASTER, ANNIE REED and Victoria Friedman District Complaince Officer, Genie-Sarceda-Magruder Interim Director Office for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, Rick Von Kolen to violate this statute.

28. . . .Dr Hamilton admitted to other illegal activity such as planting drugs on employees to destroy their reputation and get them fired. Dr Silva filed a grievance against Dean Hamilton to try and get her to stop the illegal activity, the union did nothing. 

32. Ms. Silva complained to Human Resources filed a title IX complaint, made a report to the police and was retaliated against.

Filed October 19, 2023 Sara Adams, An Individual VS California Institute of Technology, California Corporation. (https://trellis.law/case/23stcv25556/sara-adams-an-individual-vs california-institute-technology-california-corporation)

“21. On April 7, 2023, Mr. Wu continued to report the pay disparity to Annie Reed, Upon information and belief, Annie Reed is Caltech’s Employee and Organizational Development Consultant (Human Resources Department). 

22. Annie Reed spoke about the report of pay disparity to Ofelia Velazquez-Perez, Caltech’s Senior Director, Total Rewards and Director of Employee and Organizational Development (Employee Relations).”

Filed March 08, 2021, Mitra Hoshiar, an individual, Plaintiff, v. Los Angeles Community College District, (https://trellis.law/case/21stcv08950/mitra-hoshiar-vs-los-angeles-community college-district-an-unknown-entity)

“28. On December 3, 2015, PLAINTIFF then filed a discrimination complaint against Sheri Berger (“Berger”), VP of Academic Affairs, and Fernando Oleas (“Oleas”), Pierce Union President. During PLAINTIFF meeting with Dean Barbara Anderson (“Anderson”) at Anderson’s office on June 10, 2015, Berger and Oleas stopped by and started making remarks of PLAINTIFF’s accent for reading the graduates’ names on the ceremony with a non-American accent.

29. Thereafter, On December 11, 2015, in meeting with Dean Annie Reed in conjunction with the non-collegiality investigation Walsh, Union Grievance Rep and Oleas stopped by at PLAINTIFF’s office in order to prevent PLAINTIFF from Union Representation. They made PLAINTIFF to Barbara Anderson, whom was PLANTIFF’s chosen union rep and request for Anderson to not join the meeting because Walsh and Oleas had to choose who could be the union representation in the meeting.

30. Based on what had transpired on December 11, 2015, on December 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Whistleblower/Retaliation Complaint at the District’s Complaint at the District’s Compliance Office against Walsh, Oleas, and McKeever (department and union delegate), and other members of her department. No action was taken by the Compliance Office.

Annie G. Reed’s, current interim Dean of Labor and Employee Relations, has been involved in covering up wrongdoing in the Los Angeles Community College District for decades. Her targets have involved employees, students, faculty, and even a trustee. And so far has never been held accountable.

Multiple stories were published on newswire IndyBay, the news outlet branch of the San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center between 2023 and 2024. They were then scrubbed (along with other stories) over the weekend of May 18, 2025.

Recently, newly appointed Chancellor, Dr. Alberto J. Roman has been alerted to Ms. Reed’s disturbing history – it remains to be seen whether he will take corrective action, or continue to 6 keep around the same problematic individuals that resulted in his predecessor’s resignation after a vote of no-confidence by the LACCD Academic Senate.

(To be continued...) 

Higher Education in Retreat (Gary Roth)

 [Editor's note: This article first appeared in the Brooklyn Rail.  We thank the Brooklyn Rail for allowing us to repost this.]

For decades, the top-tier colleges and universities—often represented by Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, but including a few dozen other private and public institutions as well—have reshaped themselves to accommodate the rapidly-changing demographic profile of the United States.1 From all appearances, the universities were also in harmony with the sensibilities and preferences of the country’s leading citizens. Key moments, like the sanctioning of gay marriage that found support from wide-spread sectors of the upper class, seemed to solidify the drift towards a diverse and tolerant social order, one that resonated not only domestically but internationally as well.

The future evolution of civil society was, in this way of thinking, firmly and finally in hand. Bitter acrimony might characterize the political world or single-issue items like abortion, but actual developments outweighed the leftover pockets of resistance, which in any case were thought to be localized in less significant parts of the country and the world and could at best only slow the inevitable. How hard people pushed for change would ultimately determine the future.

This somnambulistic mode of thought pervaded the university world and also wide swaths of the liberal public. It helps explain the ease with which parts of the university community, after an initial round of caution, joined hands with its political opposition to suppress the campus protests that developed in response to Israel’s brutality towards Palestinian civilians.

Appeasement and accommodation, while regrettable within the academic community because of the retreat from sacrosanct ideas such as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, nonetheless set the stage for developments that followed the national elections at the end of last year. Martin Niemöller’s self-confession about his support—as a Lutheran pastor—for the German fascists during the 1930s captures nicely the corner into which the higher education community had boxed itself:

When the Nazis came for the Communists, I kept quiet; I wasn’t a communist.
When they came for the trade unionists, I kept quiet; I wasn’t a trade unionist.
When they jailed the Social Democrats, I kept quiet; I wasn’t a social democrat.
When they jailed the Jews, I kept quiet; I wasn’t a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left who could protest.2

Without a vibrant protest movement already in place to push against harsh and arbitrary actions, the universities seemed to have little choice but to acquiesce to a regime that seems interested in flattening the population into an undifferentiated mass.3

Because appeasement and accommodation have been embraced as proactive survival tactics, resistance has centered on a judicial system thought to be less conservative than the groups that have come to dominate the executive and legislative branches of government, a judiciary conceptualized as a mediator rather than an initiator and enforcer of social conflict. Given the legal system’s history, this too becomes another moment of sleep walking. It is a huge distance from the dynamism that characterized the world of higher education not long ago.

Among the most dynamic institutions have been the privately-governed universities like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Not just their social vision, but their great wealth allowed them to embrace initiatives that stand at the forefront of attempts to remold institutional behavior. Front and center have been efforts to diversify the upper ranks of corporate, governmental, and non-profit establishments such that they too reflect the diversity of the population at large.

Previous attempts to diversify the collegiate student body by means of affirmative action programs that focused on underrepresented groups, especially African Americans and Latines, were struck down by the judiciary. Anti-affirmative action backlash took aim at the admissions policies at highly-competitive graduate programs, such as elite law and medical schools, and on prestigious scholarship programs. The backlash, in other words, concentrated on the byways that provided access into the upper levels of society.

Schools and programs that served the remainder of the population were not of particular concern. Graduate programs in public administration, for instance, where the training of mid-level administrators is the aim, rarely came under attack, whether located at medium-sized liberal arts colleges or regional state universities. These types of institutions also suspended their affirmative action initiatives, but mostly as preemptive moves to avoid future litigation. By strategically targeting the institutions at the top, the entire system was enticed to reorient itself.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives were one of the responses to both past and recent judicial rollbacks. These were initiatives directed toward the recruitment and retention of underrepresented groups rather than their admission and funding. DEI initiatives, though, did not deal with the cost of attendance, which at the elite private institutions is beyond everyone’s means except for the wealthy. For tuition, room, and board to attend as an undergraduate, the current cost for the 2025–26 school year at Princeton, for example, is $82,650. Fees are extra.4

Financial incentives based on socioeconomic status, however, were a strategy that seemingly silenced all critics. The most generous programs encompass virtually all applicants from either a working or middle class background; that is, everyone except the elite is covered as long as household or parental income is below $200,000 annually. At Princeton, the limit is $100,000, pegged considerably above the level of median household income in the United States.5

This allows the institutions to be “needs-blind” and recruit students no matter their financial situation. A tuition-free college education—once a hallmark of publicly-funded institutions—has been revived at the upper end of the spectrum, a profound assertion by these institutions of their intent to further the socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic integration of the upper class.

One consequence of these cost-free programs is that it is often cheaper to attend an elite college like Princeton than to attend the nearby publicly-funded state university, the flagship institution—in this case, Rutgers University-New Brunswick. These figures are drawn from government calculations that show actual expenses for families at different tiers of the socioeconomic spectrum:6

CHART 1 – ANNUAL UNDERGRADUATE NET COST OF ATTENDANCE

Family income	PRINCETON	RUTGERS-NEW BRUNSWICK
Less than $ 30,000	$  2,518	$15,885
$30,001 - $ 48,000	$  4,682	$15,532
$48,001 - $ 75,000	$  7,652	$17,578
$75,001 - $110,000	$13,849	$24,020
Over $110,001	$39,943	$33,460

 

A significant reversal has taken place. The elite privates have become the exemplars for the entire system of higher education, not just academically but economically as well. It makes economic sense for the poor to attend elite private institutions (assuming they are offered one of the few open slots) and for the rich to attend publicly-funded ones. Because student loans are not part of these aid packages, students at elite colleges graduate with less debt than students at nearby public flagships.7

We find, then, that the more selective the college—Princeton admits five percent of applicants, Rutgers-New Brunswick sixty-five percent—the cheaper it is to attend, and the more likely you are to graduate—at Princeton ninety-eight percent, at Rutgers-New Brunswick eighty-four percent—the less that debt encumbers you afterwards. And what’s true about the comparison of Princeton and its nearby publicly-funded flagship is true in other states also: Harvard and University of Massachusetts in Amherst, Yale and the University of Connecticut at Storrs, and so on.

Just as important, student socioeconomic profiles parallel those at nearby public flagships. At Princeton, one in five (twenty percent) of its students receives a Pell Grant. These are the federally-funded grants awarded when family income is below, roughly, $50,000. Pell Grants thus serve as a reasonable measure of the density of students from working class and poor backgrounds at a particular institution. At Rutgers-New Brunswick, it is one in four students (28 percent).

Socioeconomic programs like the one at Princeton exist at more than a hundred public and privately-governed college institutions. Taken altogether, there has been a quiet undermining of commonly-accepted assumptions regarding elite institutions and their public counterparts. That the private elite institutions often outperform the public sector ones in matters traditionally considered the latter’s prerogative shows how deeply intertwined the private and public sectors have become.

Yet for all their efforts, the elite institutions still do not reflect the demographics of the population at large. This is true for the elite privates and also for public flagships. Nationally, thirty percent of students receive Pell Grants, a measure of the degree to which the working class has become a substantial part of the university community. At top-tier schools, however, fewer of their students receive Pell Grants. At Harvard, it is seventeen percent; at Yale, nineteen percent; at the Texas flagship, UT Austin, twenty-five percent; at the Florida flagship, UF Gainesville, twenty-three percent.8

That socioeconomic diversity is lower at elite privates and public flagships than is the national norm is not surprising, given the amply-documented correlation between parental finances and scholastic performance.9 Students from wealthier backgrounds, as a rule, perform better academically and are more likely to attend prestigious institutions. Still, the top-tier institutions have come a long way from the times in which they represented, with few exceptions: only the elite.

At places like Princeton, the student body is nearly as diverse racially and ethnically as at the nearby state flagship. According to the broad demographic categories used in government publications and legislation, we find that at both Princeton and Rutgers-New Brunswick, there are no majorities, only minorities:10

CHART 2 – RACE AND ETHNICITY AT TOP-TIER INSTITUTIONS

(in percents)	PRINCETON	RUTGERS-NEW BRUNSWICK
Asian	24	33
Black (African American)	9	7
Hispanic (Latine)	10	16
White	36	31
Non-Resident Alien (International Students)	12	7
Two or More Races (Multiracial)	7	4

 

Immigration and migration initially produced majority-less campuses at urban public institutions; in other words, at institutions located in major metropolitan areas—places where jobs are numerous and resistance to newcomers often diffuse and undirected. At Princeton and other elite institutions, however, it is not demographics, but merit—in combination with these economically-based financial aid packages—that drive the dynamic.

Forty-five years ago, individuals self-identified as white represented eighty-four percent of all undergraduates but only seventy-seven percent of eighteen to twenty-four year-olds (Chart 3). Higher education was a significant cultural dynamic for this group. A major reversal has since taken place, in which the white population now accounts for fifty-two percent of eighteen to twenty-four year-olds and the same percentage of college students. Their lead has been lost.

Every other group has moved in the opposite direction, increasing its presence within the collegiate system faster than their increase in either population or the prime college-attending age cohort (eighteen to twenty-four year-olds). The latter group has been relatively stable within the Black population, for instance, only increasing one percentage point from thirteen to fourteen percent during those decades. But the presence of Black students among undergraduate college students has increased from nine to thirteen percent. Among the Latine (Hispanic) population, the increase has been dramatic. While their share of eighteen to twenty-four year-olds tripled from eight to twenty-four percent, their share among undergraduates increased more than five-fold.

Affirmative action and DEI initiatives fostered the importance of a college education as a means to circumvent obstacles within the economy:11

CHART 3 – RACIAL & ETHNIC DIVERSITY

	18-24 YEAR-OLDS		HIGHER EDUCATION
(in percents)	1980	2022	1980	2022
Asian	2	6	2	8
Black	13	14	9	13
Hispanic	8	24	4	22
White	77	52	84	52
Two or More Races	—	4	—	4

 

Over the past half century, a leveling of the population has taken place, with the Black, Latine, and white communities all participating in post-secondary education at rates equivalent to their respective shares of the prime college-attending age group (eighteen to twenty-four year-olds).

This equalization is an aspect of reality that has been neglected by the academic community, which has generally focused on the advantages members of the white community have both educationally and occupationally due to kinship and parental networks, friendship circles, neighborhood contacts, and a lack of discrimination based on skin color. Implicit in this view is that whites need not rely on the educational system as heavily as other groups, since alternative avenues of advancement are available.

In many of the top institutions, the fall-off of white students is quite pronounced:

CHART 4 - DIVERSITY AT PRIVATE ELITES AND PUBLIC FLAGSHIPS

(in percents)	Higher Education	Harvard	Yale	Columbia	UPenn	UT Austin	UF Gainesville
Asian	8	22	23	18	28	25	12
Black	13	9	9	8	9	5	5
Hispanic	22	12	16	16	11	28	24
White	52	33	32	30	30	32	50
Non-Resident	—	14	11	18	12	4	2
Two/+ Races	4	7	7	6	5	4	5

 

During the decades in which affirmative action and DEI programs have attempted to bring some measure of equal access and equal achievement to educational endeavors, parts of the white community were drifting away. This blind-spot within the academic community’s understanding of social dynamics meant that concepts of relative disadvantage might have fit the situation just as well as ones of privilege and advantage.12

Increased funding in order to include whites in DEI initiatives is a possible solution, although a fundamental rethinking of inclusivity is also called for. Instead, the elimination of services and programs has become a mandate to ensure that no group will be helped to rise out of an undifferentiated mass. If government and higher education are taken out of the picture, social advancement, which always requires additional resources, then hinges solely on the wherewithal of individual families.

The university community, with its emphasis on inclusion and diversity, has represented a last outpost of a kind of thinking—of governmental spending and educational activism—that was once heralded under the label of Keynesianism and dates back to the immediate post-World War II period when everything seemed possible. Like the fate of the white population, society itself has gone through a long-winded period of evolution and transformation despite the tenacity of modes of thought initially generated in previous times.

Because colleges and universities depend so heavily on external funding for research grants and student loans, the political world has laid claim to its governance in ever-aggressive ways. The opening thrust has concentrated on the elite privates—Columbia, UPenn, Harvard, and Princeton among them. The integration of the two worlds of politics and education, in this sense, signals the remaking of higher education into a sphere of government in which the political world functions as its own type of board of directors. While the federal Department of Education is in the process of dissolution, the entire system of higher education is being reduced to the level of a federal department. This is part of an overall effort to curtail civil society and reign in its independence, in which scientists—initially those whose work concentrates on the environment or on global public health issues—have been a major focus.

Perhaps it is in this sense that we can understand the reluctance of university executives to confront directly what at first seemed to be scattershot criticisms aimed at various parts of their enterprises and why they did not push back harder at the assertion that criticism of Israeli policies is a form of antisemitism. It is not just that the higher education community was unprepared for the level and intensity of the criticisms, but that it was so highly vulnerable.

The top-tier institutions are the gonfaloniers of modern times, targets whose capture on the battlefield disorients the troops that follow their lead. To intimidate and diminish the top-tier institutions sends a message to the wider educational community about the punitive actions that non-compliance may bring. It effectively shifts the center of gravity throughout a major portion of society. In the conflict between the government and the educational community that depends on it, the latter can only lose, even if the degree to which it loses is still to be determined. The universities are a highly strategic and, as it turns out, easy target, ideologically and in terms of government expenses.

That the university community has also served as a base and breeding ground for liberal politics is still another reason for its subjugation.13 The overall result gestures in the direction of a shrunken and harshly repressed and repressive educational system that cowers to executive mandates because of the certainty that if not, legislative enactments will follow.14 Highly successful white males are the driving force behind all this. Their goal: a system that encourages no exceptions except for people who mimic themselves.

The world we have known is disappearing, an unraveling that would take considerable time to now reassemble. It is unclear whether and to what degree colleges and universities will remain as sanctuaries for the expression of ideas inconsonant with the political establishment. Perhaps some solace is to be found in this quip by Mother Jones, herself a fierce labor movement advocate at the turn of the nineteenth into the twentieth centuries. She was heard to say: “Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living.”

1. Between 1980 and 2022, the major changes were in the white population, which fell from 80 to 59 percent, while the Latine population increased dramatically from 7 to 19 percent. The Black population barely changed—from 12 to 13 percent, and the Asian population increased from 2 to 6 percent. National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics–Most Current Digest Tables, 2023, Tables 101.20.
2. Many versions of this poem exist. The version here is unabridged, translated from the original.
3. Alan Blinder, “Trump’s Battles With Colleges Could Change American Culture for a Generation.” The New York Times, March 20, 2025.
4. Cost & Aid | Princeton Admission.
5. Median annual income is just over $80,000 per year. These programs also take into account a family's wealth in property, business assets, etc., in complicated formulas that can mitigate qualifying on income alone. Stephanie Saul, “Harvard Will Make Tuition Free for More Students.” The New York Times, 17 March 2025; Peyton Beverford, Free Tuition for Low-Income Students | Appily. 21 March 2025; US Census Bureau, Income in the United States: 2023, 10 September 2024.
6. Unless indicated otherwise, all data is from the US Department of Education, College Scorecard, 23 April 2025. For each institution, see the various listings under: Costs, By Family Income; Financial Aid & Debt; Test Scores and Acceptance; Graduation & Retention; Typical Earnings; Campus Diversity.
7. At Princeton, the median debt for undergraduates when they finish their degrees is $10,320; at Rutgers-New Brunswick, it is $21,500.
8. Share of Federal Pell Grants recipients U.S. 2024 | Statista.
9. The situation a decade ago: “among ‘Ivy-Plus’ colleges (the eight Ivy League colleges, University of Chicago, Stanford, MIT, and Duke), more students come from families in the top 1% of the income distribution (14.5%) than the bottom half of the income distribution (13.5%).” Raj Chetty, John N. Friedman, Emmanuel Saez, Nicholas Turner, and Danny Yagan, “Mobility Report Cards: The Role of Colleges in Intergenerational Mobility,” National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w23618, July 2017, p. 1.
10. Not listed are: American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and Unknown. Numbers do not always equal 100 due to rounding or these absent categories.
11. National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics-Most Current Digest Tables, 2023, Tables 101.20, 306.10 (scroll down for the relevant data—based on 2022 totals, rounded up).
12. In the academic trilogy of race, class, and gender, many scholars sought a means to move the discussion of class from the theoretical, where it received extensive attention, to the concrete so that it could function similarly to the analyses of race and gender. Intersectionality has been one of the results, which nonetheless still leaves class undertheorized on a concrete level.
13. On voting patterns, see: Matt Grossmann and David A. Hopkins, Polarized Degrees: How the Diploma Divide and the Culture War Transformed American Politics. Cambridge University Press: 2024.
14. Isabelle Taft, “How Colleges Are Surveilling Students Now.” The New York Times, March 29, 2025.

Thanks to Jules David Bartkowski, Anne Lopes, and Paul Mattick for comments.

Gary Roth is the author of The Educated Underclass: Students and the Promise of Social Mobility (Pluto Press, 2019).