Trump’s War on Public Knowledge: The Dismantling of ERIC, the Gutting of IMLS, and the Erosion of Educational Access

When teachers search for lesson plans, parents look up school policies, or researchers investigate the American education system, many unknowingly rely on public infrastructure that makes this information accessible. One such pillar is ERIC—the Education Resources Information Center—a free, open-access archive of over 2.1 million education documents funded by the U.S. Department of Education. Another is the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), which provides critical funding and research support to libraries and museums across the country.

Both are now under coordinated attack.

ERIC was set to stop updating after April 23. IMLS, the primary federal funding source for libraries and museums, is being gutted. The Trump administration has not only defunded these institutions—it’s dismantling the very structures that enable public access to knowledge, learning, and culture.

---

Coordinated Sabotage, Cloaked in Bureaucracy

ERIC’s shutdown is not due to budget shortfalls or Congressional gridlock. It’s a deliberate move by the administration, executed through a newly created bureaucratic entity called DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency). Though Congress authorized ERIC’s funding through 2028, DOGE has blocked the release of those funds, rendering the program inoperable.

Meanwhile, IMLS is facing its own death by design. A recent executive order signed by President Trump calls for the elimination of IMLS “to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law,” alongside six other small agencies. Staff were told that the agency would be “down to the studs,” with some projections suggesting the workforce will be cut from 75 employees to just 30—possibly transferring some to the Department of Labor. Remaining functions will be reduced to only what is legally required, hollowing out its ability to provide grants, support research, or shape policy.

“It’s devastating to the communities that we serve, the libraries and museums across this country,” one IMLS employee said.

---

Public Knowledge as Political Casualty

What connects ERIC and IMLS is their role in preserving and democratizing access to knowledge. ERIC is often called the education sector’s version of PubMed, a go-to source for peer-reviewed articles, gray literature, and independent research on American education. IMLS, with a $295 million annual budget, supports thousands of libraries and museums through grants and development initiatives, especially in underserved communities.

Their destruction is not a policy accident. It’s a political strategy.

“These cuts aren’t about trimming fat,” said Erin Pollard Young, former ERIC director who was terminated in a mass layoff of 1,300 education department employees. “They’re about eliminating sources of information that contradict the administration’s ideological narrative.”

ERIC’s gray literature includes unpublished reports and local school evaluations that expose hard truths about segregation, inequality, and failed corporate reforms. These aren’t easy to spin into culture war fodder—so instead, they’re buried.

---

From Starving Budgets to Shutting Doors

Pollard Young was ordered by DOGE to slash ERIC’s budget from $5.5 million to $2.25 million. Her plan included eliminating nearly half of ERIC’s journal coverage and absorbing duties from contractors. Even then, her revised budget proposal was summarily rejected with an email in all caps: “THIS IS NOT APPROVED.”

At IMLS, staff were given just days to apply for early retirement or incentive payments. Reduction in Force (RIF) notices are expected any day now, signaling the beginning of mass layoffs. The agency’s capacity to serve local libraries and cultural institutions is rapidly being dismantled.

The cumulative effect is clear: this administration is starving the nation’s knowledge infrastructure. Libraries. Research databases. Museums. Education grants. Anything that supports open inquiry and informed decision-making is being cut off at the source.

---

What’s Next? The Slow Death of Public Knowledge Infrastructure

ERIC and IMLS may only be the beginning.

If the Trump administration continues along this trajectory, other public knowledge databases could soon face similar attacks. Publicly funded resources like:

• PubMed (biomedical literature)

• NCES (National Center for Education Statistics)

• NTIS (National Technical Information Service)

• Data.gov (federal open data)

• NASA’s Scientific and Technical Information Program

• The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

...could be hollowed out or shuttered under the guise of “efficiency.” These databases, often invisible to the public, power entire ecosystems of policy research, scientific discovery, journalism, and local decision-making. Their disappearance would leave a vacuum easily filled by misinformation, partisan spin, and corporate-sponsored content.

What’s at stake is the very infrastructure of truth.

The erosion of credible, accessible, and independent information sources is not just about education—it’s about the dismantling of informed citizenship. Without publicly funded, peer-reviewed, and historically reliable databases, Americans are left to sort through algorithmically curated noise, corporate propaganda, and ideological misinformation with no baseline for truth.

The result? A nation where facts are optional, history is rewritten, and the public sphere is reduced to echo chambers of power.

---

An Attack on Democracy Itself

The consequences extend far beyond research access. This is an attack on the civic institutions that uphold democracy. Without ERIC, schools and policymakers lose the ability to make evidence-based decisions. Without IMLS, libraries—often the only internet access point in rural and poor communities—will lose the support they need to stay open.

“Defunding ERIC would limit public access to critical education research,” said Gladys Cruz of AASA, The School Superintendents Association. “The same goes for IMLS. When you pull out the scaffolding of knowledge from public life, what remains is ideology, disinformation, and ignorance.”

The Department of Education has doubled down, attacking the Institute of Education Sciences (ERIC’s parent agency) as ineffective—standard operating procedure in this administration: discredit the institution, defund it, destroy it.

---

A Call to Resist

Pollard Young is risking retaliation by speaking out. “To me, it is important for the field to know that I am doing everything in my power to save ERIC,” she said. “And also for the country to understand what is happening.”

We should listen.

What we’re witnessing is a 21st-century form of authoritarianism—not through overt censorship alone, but through systematic erasure of public knowledge, carried out under the pretense of bureaucratic streamlining. The goal is to leave behind a nation with fewer tools to learn, less access to the truth, and more room for lies to grow.

ERIC and IMLS are more than databases or funding agencies. They are lifelines to knowledge, culture, and informed citizenship. Killing them isn’t just reckless.

It’s ideological.

And we ignore their dismantling at our peril.

Maximus AidVantage

[Image of AidVantage operations in Greenville, Texas. Note the barbed wire fence.]

The recent decision to have the Small Business Administration (SBA) take over the federal student loan portfolio has sent shockwaves through the world of education finance. As the SBA — an agency traditionally focused on supporting small businesses — begins to manage a multi-billion dollar portfolio of student loans, borrowers, consumer protection advocates, and financial experts alike are left to question what this transition means for the future of loan servicing, borrower protections, and higher education financing.

At the heart of this shift is the role of Maximus AidVantage, one of the major student loan servicers handling federal loans. Maximus has already come under scrutiny for its inefficiency, poor customer service, and mishandling of crucial borrower programs, such as Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans. The company’s track record has led to widespread frustration, with many borrowers reporting significant issues, including misinformation, lost paperwork, and mistakes that have placed them at risk of financial hardship.

Yet, despite these concerns, Maximus has maintained its position at the helm of federal student loan servicing. Its CEO, Bruce Caswell, has been compensated handsomely for overseeing the company’s role in this controversial space. According to recent financial reports, Caswell’s total compensation has included a base salary of over $1.3 million, with total compensation often exceeding $8 million when accounting for bonuses, stock options, and other forms of remuneration. This high pay, especially in light of the company’s poor performance in customer service and loan servicing, raises questions about the priorities of both the company and the federal government, which continues to entrust Maximus with managing the finances of millions of borrowers.

The Shift to the SBA: A Lack of Expertise

The most immediate concern surrounding the SBA’s takeover of student loan management is its lack of expertise in this field. The SBA’s core mission has been to assist small businesses, offering loan guarantees and financial support to promote economic growth. While it is well-equipped to manage business loans, the agency has no experience dealing with the unique and complex needs of student loan borrowers. Federal student loans involve intricate repayment plans, borrower protections, and specialized programs like PSLF, all of which require a deep understanding of the educational sector and the financial struggles of students and graduates.

Transferring such an important and complex responsibility to the SBA without a clear plan for adaptation could lead to mismanagement, inefficiencies, and disruptions for millions of borrowers. The SBA simply isn’t set up to handle issues like loan forgiveness, income-driven repayment plans, and the variety of special accommodations that are necessary for student borrowers. If the SBA isn’t adequately staffed or resourced to take on these new responsibilities, students could be left in the lurch, facing delays, confusion, and even errors in their loan servicing.

A Confusing Transition for Borrowers

For those already dealing with the intricacies of federal student loans, this transition to the SBA is likely to create a significant amount of confusion. Student loan borrowers rely on clear communication, accurate account management, and timely assistance when navigating repayment plans. The Department of Education has long been the agency responsible for ensuring that these programs are managed effectively, but with the SBA taking over, borrowers may face new systems, new contacts, and, potentially, a lack of clarity about their loan status.

One of the biggest risks in this transition is the potential disruption of critical loan repayment programs, such as PSLF, which allows public service workers to have their loans forgiven after ten years of payments. These programs require careful management to ensure that borrowers meet the necessary qualifications. The SBA is not accustomed to handling such programs and may struggle to maintain the same level of efficiency and accuracy, especially if the agency does not prioritize dedicated support for student loan borrowers.

Diminished Consumer Protections

Perhaps the most concerning outcome of the SBA taking over student loans is the potential erosion of consumer protections. The Department of Education has a specific mandate to protect borrowers, which includes holding loan servicers accountable for mishandling accounts and ensuring transparency in loan servicing practices. The SBA, however, has never been tasked with such consumer-focused regulations, and its shift to managing student loans raises concerns that borrower rights might not be adequately enforced.

For example, the SBA may not have the resources or inclination to monitor loan servicers like Maximus closely, allowing them to continue engaging in deceptive practices without fear of regulatory repercussions. The agency might also be less likely to step in when borrowers face issues such as misapplied payments, incorrect information about forgiveness programs, or poorly managed accounts. With the SBA’s focus on business rather than consumer welfare, student loan borrowers may find themselves facing more hurdles without the protections that the Department of Education once provided.

The Impact on Repayment and Forgiveness Programs

Another pressing issue is the potential disruption of repayment and forgiveness programs under SBA oversight. Programs like Income-Driven Repayment (IDR), designed to help borrowers pay off their loans based on their income, require careful management and regular updates. Similarly, the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program is highly specific and requires rigorous tracking of borrowers’ payments and work history to ensure they qualify for forgiveness after ten years.

If the SBA is not adequately equipped to handle these specialized programs, borrowers might find themselves in a precarious position, especially if their loans are mismanaged or if they are denied forgiveness due to administrative errors. The confusion caused by the transition could delay or even derail borrowers’ efforts to achieve loan forgiveness, leaving them stuck with debt for longer than expected.

The Role of Maximus: Financial Incentives Amidst Failure

Amidst the uncertainty of this transition, Maximus continues to play a key role in servicing the federal student loan portfolio. Yet, despite its persistent failures in managing accounts and borrower relations, Maximus has remained highly profitable, with Bruce Caswell’s executive compensation reflecting this success in terms of revenue but not in terms of customer satisfaction.

Maximus’s reported $8 million in total compensation for Caswell, despite the company’s history of customer complaints, raises serious questions about priorities. While Maximus rakes in millions from servicing federal loans, borrowers are left to deal with the consequences of mistakes, misinformation, and poor service. In a system where the stakes are incredibly high for borrowers, this disparity between executive pay and customer service is concerning, especially in light of the SBA’s takeover, which promises more uncertainty.

Adding to the controversy, Maximus has also been involved in labor disputes with the Communications Workers of America (CWA), its workers' union. These disputes, which have centered on issues such as wages, benefits, and working conditions, further complicate the company’s already tarnished reputation. Workers have accused Maximus of engaging in unfair labor practices and failing to adequately support employees who are tasked with assisting borrowers. If these labor disputes continue to affect employee morale and productivity, it could lead to even worse service for borrowers who are already dealing with a complicated and frustrating loan servicing process. The combination of poor customer service, labor unrest, and executive compensation that seems out of sync with the company’s performance paints a troubling picture for the future of student loan management under Maximus.

The Threat of Reduced Loan Forgiveness and IDR Plans

Adding to the turmoil surrounding the future of student loans is the growing effort by the U.S. government to reduce or even eliminate key student loan forgiveness programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans. These programs were designed to provide crucial relief for borrowers working in public service or those struggling with debt relative to their income. However, recent reports suggest that the government may look to reduce eligibility for these programs, impose stricter requirements, or completely eliminate them altogether as part of broader fiscal policy adjustments.

The removal of or reductions to these programs would leave borrowers with fewer avenues to manage their debt, potentially increasing default rates and extending the time it takes for borrowers to repay their loans. For individuals in public service jobs or those facing financial hardship, these changes would have a devastating impact on their ability to achieve financial stability and pay down their student loans. If the SBA, with its lack of focus on education finance, inherits this responsibility without reinforcing these programs, borrowers might find themselves in a far worse position than ever before.

Furthermore, this reduction in borrower protections and streamlining of repayment options may also be part of a broader strategy to push more borrowers into private loan options, which could further exacerbate financial hardship for those who are already struggling. With private loans often carrying higher interest rates, less favorable repayment terms, and fewer options for deferral or forgiveness, such a shift would mark a significant pivot towards privatization, benefiting financial institutions while leaving borrowers with even fewer protections and much higher costs.

A Plan to Push Consumers Toward Private Loans?

Many experts are beginning to question whether the government’s plans for overhauling student loan servicing are part of a larger agenda to move borrowers toward private loans. By reducing or eliminating federal loan protections, forgiveness programs, and income-driven repayment options, the government may be attempting to create a vacuum in which private lenders can step in and offer alternative (and likely more expensive) financing options.

This push toward privatization could significantly increase profits for private lenders while making it harder for borrowers to repay their loans. With private loans lacking many of the protections and flexible repayment options offered by federal loans, such a shift could result in higher default rates and greater financial instability for borrowers, particularly for those with already high debt levels.

Conclusion: A New Era of Uncertainty

The transition of student loan servicing to the Small Business Administration represents a significant shift in the federal student loan system, one that could lead to inefficiencies, confusion, and a reduction in protections for borrowers. With agencies like Maximus AidVantage continuing to profit from loan servicing despite failing borrowers, ongoing labor disputes, and a focus on executive compensation over customer service, and the SBA stepping into a complex arena with limited experience, the future of student loan servicing seems fraught with challenges.

The push to reduce or eliminate key student loan forgiveness programs like PSLF and IDR only adds to the uncertainty, leaving millions of borrowers facing a potentially more difficult future. Moreover, the possibility of moving consumers toward private loans with fewer protections and harsher terms would deepen the financial struggles of many borrowers. This move underscores the importance of effective oversight and the need for federal agencies to prioritize the well-being of borrowers over financial interests. The student loan system should be about more than just revenue generation — it should be about supporting borrowers and ensuring that they can achieve financial freedom, not be left trapped in a cycle of debt and frustration. Without proper management, this new era of student loan servicing risks deepening the crisis for millions of Americans who are already struggling to keep up with their education-related debts.

Trump’s War on Public Knowledge: The Dismantling of ERIC and the Erosion of Educational Access

When teachers search for help with lesson plans, parents look for answers on school policies, or researchers dig into the roots of America’s education system, many unknowingly rely on a public treasure: ERIC, the Education Resources Information Center. Behind nearly every meaningful Google result about U.S. education lies this carefully curated public database, an open-access archive of more than 2.1 million education documents funded by the U.S. Department of Education.

But this essential public good—free, accessible, nonpartisan—is now on the chopping block.

Unless something changes in the coming days, ERIC will stop being updated after April 23, marking the end of a 60-year-old institution that has helped educators, researchers, and policymakers base decisions on evidence, not ideology. The shutdown is not the result of budget shortfalls or Congressional gridlock. It’s a deliberate act of sabotage by the Trump administration, hiding behind the bland bureaucratic label of “efficiency.”

Dismantling by Design

ERIC has been a mainstay of U.S. education since the 1960s, originally distributed on microfiche and now operating as a seamless, open-access website used by 14 million people each year. Think of it as the education world’s PubMed—a foundational, publicly funded resource that supports millions of decisions in classrooms and boardrooms alike.

The platform is funded through a five-year contract set to run through 2028. But that contract is now functionally dead thanks to DOGE, the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, a newly created unit within the Trump Department of Education. Though Congress authorized the money, DOGE has refused to release it, effectively forcing ERIC into paralysis.

“After 60 years of gathering hard-to-find education literature and sharing it broadly, the website could stop being updated,” said Erin Pollard Young, the longtime Education Department staffer who oversaw ERIC until she was terminated in a mass layoff of more than 1,300 federal education employees in March.

Let’s be clear: this isn’t just about saving a database. This is about obliterating public access to knowledge—especially knowledge that challenges right-wing narratives about education in America.

The Anti-Intellectual Playbook

This is not an isolated incident. The Trump administration’s hostility toward public institutions, academic research, and intellectual labor has been a central feature of its governance. From banning diversity training to rewriting U.S. history standards, this White House has repeatedly attacked education systems that promote nuance, evidence, or inclusion.

ERIC is now the latest victim in a broader war on independent knowledge. It doesn’t just house peer-reviewed journal articles. It archives what’s known as gray literature—unpublished reports, independent studies, and school district evaluations that are often the only public record of how education really works in practice. These materials often tell inconvenient truths: about inequality, segregation, charter school corruption, and failed policies pushed by corporate reformers.

“Big, important RCTs [randomized controlled trials] are in white papers,” said Pollard Young. “Google and AI can’t replicate what ERIC does.”

But gray literature doesn’t fit neatly into Trumpworld’s political project. It can’t be weaponized into culture war talking points. And perhaps that’s why it’s being buried.

Defunding the Backbone of Evidence

Before being fired, Pollard Young was ordered by DOGE to cut ERIC’s budget nearly in half—from $5.5 million to $2.25 million—a demand she tried to meet, despite knowing the consequences. Forty-five percent of journals would have been removed from the indexing pipeline. The help desk would vanish. Pollard Young herself agreed to take over publisher outreach from contractors to keep the program alive.

Her plan was rejected with a single email in all caps: “THIS IS NOT APPROVED.” Then, silence.

“Without constant curation and updating, so much information will be lost,” she warned. And with her termination, ERIC has no federal steward left.

Make no mistake—ERIC is being suffocated, not because it failed, but because it succeeded too well. It made knowledge available to anyone with an internet connection. And for an administration that thrives on disinformation and division, that’s a threat.

Who Pays the Price?

Educators, researchers, and school leaders will lose the most. But the real tragedy is what this means for public education as a democratic institution. When vital information disappears or becomes inaccessible, it opens the door to policy based on myth and ideology, not reality.

“Defunding ERIC would limit public access to critical education research, hindering evidence-based practices and informed policy decisions,” said Gladys Cruz, past president of the AASA, The School Superintendents Association.

The Department of Education responded not with a defense of ERIC, but with a political attack on its parent agency, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES). A spokesperson claimed IES has “failed to effectively fulfill its mandate,” echoing the administration’s now-familiar strategy: discredit the institution, defund it, then destroy it.

An Urgent Call to Action

Pollard Young, who is still technically on administrative leave, has chosen to speak out, risking retaliation from a vindictive administration to warn the public.

“To me, it is important for the field to know that I am doing everything in my power to save ERIC,” she said. “And also for the country to understand what is happening.”

We should listen.

ERIC is more than a database—it’s a record of our educational history, a safeguard against ignorance, and a tool for building a more equitable future. Killing it isn’t just reckless. It’s ideological.

This is what authoritarianism looks like in the 21st century. Not just book bans and curriculum gag orders, but the slow, quiet erasure of public knowledge—done in the name of “efficiency,” while the lights go out on truth.

College Meltdown 2025, Quarter 1: Here we are, at another fork in the road.

In an August 2022 interview with Gary Stocker of College Viability, I offered a chilling projection for U.S. higher education and the College Meltdown:

“The worst-case scenario is that colleges are involved on both sides of a Second US Civil War between Christian Fundamentalists and neoliberals. Working families will take the largest hit.”

It’s a stark and provocative warning, but one grounded in decades of neoliberal policy, predatory capitalism, and ideological warfare. From our perspective at the Higher Education Inquirer, the College Meltdown is not a future risk—it’s a slow-moving catastrophe already unfolding.

Two Fronts in a Cultural and Economic War

On one side of this looming conflict are Christian fundamentalists who seek to remake public education in their own image: purging curricula of critical perspectives, defunding public universities, and promoting ideological orthodoxy over inquiry.

On the other side are neoliberal technocrats, who have transformed higher education into a marketplace of credentials, debt, and precarious labor. Under their regime, colleges prioritize growth, branding, and profit over education, equity, and labor rights.

Both groups, while ideologically different, are willing to use colleges as instruments of power. In doing so, they turn institutions of higher learning into ideological battlegrounds, undermining their civic purpose.

The Educated Underclass: Evidence of Collapse

One of the most visible outcomes of this dysfunction is the rise of the educated underclass. These are people who did what they were told: they went to college, took on debt, and earned degrees. Yet instead of opportunity, they found instability.

“A large proportion of those who have attended colleges have become part of a growing educated underclass,” Shaulis noted in his interview with Stocker.

This includes:

• Adjunct instructors working multiple jobs without benefits

• Degree holders underemployed in gig work

• Students lured into expensive, low-return programs at subprime colleges

These individuals are too educated for social support but too broke for economic stability. They are the byproduct of a system that treats education as a private investment rather than a public good.

Colleges in Crisis: A Systemic Failure

At the Higher Education Inquirer, our concept of the College Meltdown describes a long-term decline marked by falling enrollment, rising costs, debt peonage, and declining academic labor conditions:

• Enrollment has been falling since 2011, with sharp declines in community colleges and regional publics.

• Student debt has exploded, with minimal returns for many graduates.

• Academic labor is being deskilled, with "robocolleges" relying on underpaid, non-tenure-track staff or automated instruction.

• State funding is shrinking, as aging populations drive up Medicaid costs and crowd out investment in public higher education.

Enter the Trump Administration (2025)

The return of Donald Trump to the presidency in 2025 has further accelerated the higher ed crisis. His administration is now actively contributing to the system’s unraveling:

Deregulation and Predatory Practices

Trump’s Department of Education is dismantling federal oversight of for-profit colleges, weakening gainful employment protections and allowing discredited institutions back into the federal aid system. This benefits subprime colleges that trap students in cycles of debt.

Political Weaponization of Higher Ed

Trump-aligned state governments and federal agencies are targeting DEI initiatives, restricting academic freedom, and enforcing ideological conformity. Public colleges are increasingly being used to wage cultural wars.

Funding Cuts and Favoritism

Funding is being diverted from public institutions toward private religious colleges and corporate-friendly training programs. Meanwhile, community colleges and regional universities are being left to die on the vine.

Undermining Debt Relief

Efforts to reform or forgive student loans have been stalled or reversed. Borrowers are left stranded in opaque systems, while private loans surge in popularity—often with worse terms and even less accountability.

A Best-Case vs. Worst-Case Future

When asked what the next few years could look like, I offered a fork in the road:

Best case: Colleges become transparent, accountable, and aligned with the public good, confronting crises like climate change, inequality, and authoritarianism.

Worst case: Colleges become entrenched ideological battlegrounds, deepening inequality and social fragmentation. The educated underclass grows, and higher education becomes an engine of despair rather than mobility.

Conclusion

The College Meltdown is not a singular event—it is a long-term systemic crisis. Under the combined forces of privatization, political polarization, and demographic stress, U.S. higher education is being hollowed out.

As colleges pick sides in a broader culture war, the public mission of higher education is being sacrificed. The working class and the educated underclass are the casualties of a system that promised prosperity but delivered precarity.

In this volatile moment, the future of American higher education may well mirror the broader American crisis: one defined by deepening divides, fraying institutions, and a desperate need for accountability, justice, and reinvention.

FACULTY UNIONS SUE TRUMP ADMIN: NO HALTING SCIENCE RESEARCH TO SUPPRESS SPEECH (American Federation of Teachers)

The faculty and national labor unions allege that the Trump administration improperly canceled Columbia University’s federal funding to compel speech restrictions on campus, damaging both vital scientific research and academic discourse

NEW YORK– The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the AFT today sued the Trump administration on behalf of their members for unlawfully cutting off $400 million in federal funding for crucial public health research to force Columbia University to surrender its academic independence. While the Trump administration has been slashing funding since its first days in office, this move represents a stunning new tactic: using cuts as a cudgel to coerce a private institution to adopt restrictive speech codes and allow government control over teaching and learning.

The plaintiffs, who represent members of Columbia University faculty in both the humanities and sciences, allege that this coercive tactic not only undermines academic independence, but stops vital scientific research that contributes to the health and prosperity of all Americans. The terminated grants supported research on urgent issues, including Alzheimer’s disease prevention, fetal health in pregnant women, and cancer research.

The Trump administration’s unprecedented demands, and threats of similar actions against 60 universities, have created instability and a deep chilling effect on college campuses across the country.  Although the administration claims to be acting to combat antisemitism under its authority to prevent discrimination, it has completely disregarded the requirements of Title VI, the statute that provides it with that authority–requirements that exist to prevent the government from exercising too much unfettered control over funding recipients. According to the complaint, the cancellation of federal funds also violates the First Amendment, the separation of powers, and other constitutional provisions.

“The Trump administration’s threats and coercion at Columbia are part of a clear authoritarian playbook meant to crush academic freedom and critical research in American higher education. Faculty, students, and the American public will not stand for it. The repercussions extend far beyond the walls of the academy. Our constitutional rights, and the opportunity for our children and grandchildren to live in a democracy are on the line,” said Todd Wolfson, president of the AAUP.

“President Trump has taken a hatchet to American ingenuity, imagination and invention at Columbia to attack academic freedom and force compliance with his political views,” said AFT President Randi Weingarten. “Let’s be clear: the administration should tackle legitimate issues of discrimination. But this modern-day McCarthyism is not just an illegal attack on our nation’s deeply held free speech and due process rights, it creates a chilling effect that hinders the pursuit of knowledge—the core purpose of our colleges and universities. Today, we reject this bullying and resolve to challenge the administration’s edicts until they are rescinded.”

“We’re seeing university leadership across the country failing to take any action to counter the Trump administration’s unlawful assault on academic freedom,” said Reinhold Martin, president of Columbia-AAUP and professor of architecture. “As faculty, we don’t have the luxury of inaction. The integrity of civic discourse and the freedoms that form the basis of a democratic society are under attack. We have to stand up.”

The complaint alleges that the Trump administration’s broad punitive tactics are indicative of an attempt to consolidate power over higher education broadly. According to the complaint, the administration is simultaneously threatening other universities with similar punishment in order to chill dissent on specific topics and speech with which the administration disagrees. Trump administration officials have spoken publicly about their plans to “bankrupt these universities” if they don’t “play ball.”

Universities have historically been engines of innovation in critical fields like technology, national security, and medical treatments. Cuts to that research will ultimately harm the health, prosperity and security of all Americans.

“Columbia is the testing ground for the Trump administration’s tactic to force universities to yield to its control,” said Orion Danjuma, counsel at Protect Democracy. “We are bringing this lawsuit to protect higher education from unlawful government censorship and political repression.”

The lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York and names as defendants the government agencies that cut Columbia’s funding on March 7 and signed the March 13 letter to Columbia laying out the government's demands required to restore the funding, including the Department of Justice, Department of Education, Health and Human Services and General Services Administration. The plaintiffs are represented by Protect Democracy and Altshuler Berzon LLP.

The full complaint can be read here.

Upcoming Events April 1st and April 8th (Higher Ed Labor United)

April 1: How the Department of Education's Destruction Impacts Higher Education Yesterday, Trump signed an executive order to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. This comes on top of recent mass firings and funding cuts. The Dept of Ed provides vital services and support both for higher education and K-12, but we aren't always aware of its impact. On Tuesday, April 1, impacted workers and union leaders will discuss what higher education loses when the Department of Education is destroyed and how we can respond collectively. We will provide details on organizing next steps. Join us for the conversation on April 1.   Register for April 1 April 8: Kill the Cuts Nationwide Actions By cutting funds to lifesaving research and medical care, the Trump administration is abandoning families who are suffering and costing taxpayers billions of dollars. These cuts are dangerous to our health, and dangerous to our economy. On Tuesday, April 8th, 2025 workers across the country are standing up and demanding NO cuts to education and life-saving research. Organize an action for April 8 or join one already in the works.   Register for an April 8 Action 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

"... IF YOU CAN KEEP IT!": The Fight for Democracy in America (CUNY School of Labor and Urban Studies)

 

Click here to view as webpage

Fri. March 7 thru Fri. April 4 - via Zoom

"... IF YOU CAN KEEP IT!":  The Fight for Democracy in America * Civic Engagement and Leadership Development 2025 * Fridays at Noon (ET) from March 7 to April 4.   Virtual via Zoom webinar.  Register:  slucuny.swoogo.com/CELD2025

Fri. March 7 -- 12:00pm-1:30pm:   "From Multiracial Democracy to Multiracial Fascism?:  What is the Future of the American Experiment?"   Guest Speakers: Alexis McGill Johnson (she/her) - President and CEO, Planned Parenthood Federation; Planned Parenthood Action Fund Eric Ward (he/him) - Executive Vice President, Race Forward Dorian Warren (he/him) - Co-President, Center for Community Change; Community Change Action   Moderator: Alethia Jones (she/her) - Director, Civic Engagement and Leadership Development, CUNY School of Labor and Urban Studies

Fri. March 14 -- 12pm-1:30pm:   "Labor's Fight for Democracy"   Guest Speakers: Carlos Aramayo (he/him) - President, UNITE HERE Local 26; Vice President, Massachusetts AFL-CIO Adolph Reed (he/him) - Professor Emeritus, Political Science, University of Pennsylvania   Moderator: Samir Sonti (he/him) - Assistant Professor, CUNY School of Labor and Urban Studies

Fri. March 21 -- 12pm-1:30pm:   "On the Frontlines of the School for Democracy"    Guest Speakers: Jamala Rogers (she/her) - Standing for Democracy  Shane Larson (he/him) - Assistant to President; Senior Director, Government Affairs & Policy, Communications Workers of America Jessica Tang (she/her) - President, AFT Massachusetts; Vice President, Massachusetts AFL-CIO    Moderator: Stephanie Luce (she/her) - Chair and Professor, Labor Studies Department CUNY School of Labor and Urban Studies

Fri. March 28 -- 12pm-1:30pm:   "Where is the Working-Class Majority?: From Demographic Destiny to Strategic Action"   Guest Speakers: Erica Smiley (she/her) - Executive Director, Jobs With Justice  Loan Tran (they/them) - National Director, Rising Majority   Moderator: Alethia Jones (she/her) - Director, Civic Engagement and Leadership Development, CUNY School of Labor and Urban Studies

Fri. April 4 -- 12pm-1:30pm:   Can We Keep It? Reflections on "The Fight for Democracy in America"   Moderator: Alethia Jones (she/her) - Director, Civic Engagement and Leadership Development, CUNY School of Labor and Urban Studies

Register:  slucuny.swoogo.com/CELD2025

U.S. Law Schools: Perpetuating Inequality and Injustice, Serving the Billionaire Class

As the nation grapples with profound social and economic inequities, U.S. law schools have become a critical yet overlooked institution in perpetuating these disparities. From shaping the legal minds that go on to influence policy to training future attorneys who occupy the nation's corridors of power, law schools are playing an outsized role in entrenching systems of privilege, rather than dismantling them.

One of the most glaring manifestations of this failure is the Trump-era Supreme Court, whose composition has shifted dramatically due to the influence of elite law schools. Justices such as Brett Kavanaugh (Yale Law), Neil Gorsuch (Harvard Law), and Amy Coney Barrett (Notre Dame Law) have reshaped the Court in the image of conservative ideologies. These justices, primarily from elite institutions, have consistently sided with corporate interests over public welfare. Their rulings on critical issues like voting rights (Shelby County v. Holder, 2013), abortion access (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 2022), and corporate regulation (South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 2018) have had profound consequences, amplifying inequalities and reducing access to justice for marginalized communities. The legal minds trained in these prestigious law schools have moved away from serving the public, instead reinforcing the status quo and further consolidating power in the hands of the wealthy elite.

This trend is compounded by the overwhelming concentration of law school graduates in a handful of sectors, particularly Washington, D.C., and on Wall Street. A report from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP) reveals that nearly 70% of graduates from top law schools—such as Harvard, Yale, and Columbia—secure positions in large corporate law firms or government roles. Meanwhile, those who enter public service or work in underfunded legal fields such as public defense face a starkly different reality. According to the American Bar Association (ABA), the average starting salary for a public defender in 2020 was around $50,000, compared to $190,000 in major corporate law firms. This disparity highlights the economic realities facing graduates who pursue careers in public interest law.

Law schools exacerbate these inequities through their admissions processes, which heavily favor students from affluent backgrounds. A 2019 study by the Equality of Opportunity Project found that 70% of students attending Harvard Law, Yale Law, and other Ivy League law schools come from families in the top 20% income bracket, while less than 5% come from the bottom 20%. This financial divide is perpetuated by high tuition costs—Harvard Law's tuition and fees for the 2024 academic year exceed $70,000 annually—making it inaccessible to many who might otherwise have the talent and potential to succeed in law.

Furthermore, law schools’ connections with corporate sponsors and wealthy alumni networks often shape the curriculum and career pathways offered to students. As a result, legal education has become increasingly oriented toward corporate law, perpetuating a system that values prestige and financial gain over social justice. A 2021 report from the American Bar Foundation indicated that nearly half of law school graduates work in the private sector within the first ten years of their careers, most of them in high-paying corporate firms or lobbying groups, which further concentrates legal power in the hands of the elite.

The oversupply of lawyers entering corporate sectors—many of whom attend the nation’s top law schools—has created a system where elite law firms and government agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Justice and major regulatory bodies, dominate legal decision-making. This trend is also visible in the disproportionate representation of law school graduates in Washington, D.C., where they shape policy in ways that benefit large corporations and financial institutions, while leaving the needs of the general public unmet.

A central aspect of the legal system that perpetuates inequality is the way the billionaire class profits from the injustice system itself. Wealthy individuals and corporate entities have found ways to exploit the legal system to their advantage, contributing to the concentration of wealth and power. Many billionaires and large corporations fund legal battles designed to weaken regulations, block labor rights, and influence policy decisions that benefit their financial interests.

For example, major private prison companies like CoreCivic and GEO Group, both of which have ties to influential law firms, profit from the mass incarceration of predominantly Black and Latino individuals. These private companies lobby for harsher sentencing laws and immigration policies that fill their prisons, creating a cycle of profit that thrives on systemic inequality. Legal professionals trained in elite law schools frequently represent these corporations, further entrenching the power dynamics that keep vulnerable populations incarcerated.

The billionaire class also reaps the benefits of legal loopholes and tax avoidance schemes facilitated by top-tier law firms. Lawyers trained in Ivy League schools often advise wealthy clients on ways to hide their assets, evade taxes, and exploit the legal system for personal gain, which further exacerbates income inequality. Law firms and the lawyers who work in them profit immensely by providing these services, while the broader public bears the burden of underfunded social programs and public services.

The impact of law schools’ role in the legal system is not a new development, but has historical roots. For much of U.S. history, the courts and legal institutions have played a pivotal role in limiting democracy and reinforcing inequalities. However, there have been pivotal moments when the courts, often driven by lawyers trained in the nation's top schools, expanded democracy and fought for justice.

A key moment in the history of expanding democracy was the work of Thurgood Marshall and Charles Hamilton Houston, both of whom were products of Howard University School of Law—a historically Black institution that stood in stark contrast to the elite, mostly white law schools of their time. Marshall, who went on to become the first African American Supreme Court Justice, and Houston, his mentor, fought tirelessly against segregation and racial discrimination. Houston's strategy, dubbed "the 'liberal' approach to civil rights," involved challenging discriminatory laws through the courts, using legal arguments rooted in equal protection and the promise of the 14th Amendment.

Houston's legal battles laid the groundwork for the landmark Brown v. Board of Education (1954) case, where the Supreme Court, under the influence of Marshall's legal strategies, overturned the doctrine of “separate but equal” and declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. This ruling, perhaps one of the most profound examples of the courts expanding democracy, was achieved through the work of legal professionals committed to social justice, many of whom came from institutions outside the mainstream elite law schools.

Unfortunately, the trend of the courts advancing civil rights was not consistent. The Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) decision, where the Supreme Court ruled that African Americans could not be citizens, and Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which upheld racial segregation, serve as stark reminders of how the legal system can be wielded to entrench inequality and limit democracy. The very law schools that trained many of the justices responsible for these rulings were also responsible for shaping the legal education that upheld the racist and exclusionary structures of the time.

Today, the cycle of legal education serving the interests of the wealthy and powerful continues. While the courts have sometimes played a role in broadening civil rights and democracy, too often they have sided with corporate interests, limiting progress. Lawyers trained in elite law schools continue to occupy spaces where the rules of the game are rigged in favor of those with wealth and influence.

To reverse this trend, law schools must take deliberate action. They must shift their focus from training lawyers for the highest-paying and most prestigious jobs to producing attorneys who are dedicated to the public good. This includes increasing financial accessibility, offering more scholarships for low-income students, and reevaluating the curriculum to emphasize social justice, public interest law, and equitable legal reforms. Moreover, legal education should challenge the structures of wealth and power, ensuring that future lawyers are equipped to dismantle the systems that benefit billionaires and corporations at the expense of justice.

The influence of law schools in perpetuating inequality cannot be overstated. The future of the legal profession—and, by extension, the justice system—depends on whether these institutions can embrace a new mission: one that fosters true equality under the law and dismantles the structures of privilege that continue to shape our society.

Linda McMahon Poised to Be Next Secretary of Education (Forbes)

The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has advanced Linda McMahon's nomination for Secretary of the US Department of Education (ED). The HELP panel voted 12-11 to approve McMahon, former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment and co-founder of the America First Policy Institute. According to the Hill, McMahon is almost certain to be confirmed by the Senate. President Trump has directed McMahon to dismantle ED, which includes funding for poor school districts and children with disabilities, in addition to holding a student loan portfolio estimated to be worth $1.6 Trillion. A number of civil rights organizations, including the NAACP, oppose the nomination. DOGE already fired dozens of workers from the small agency.