When Was Higher Education Truly a Public Good? (Glen McGhee)

Like staring at the Sun too long, that brief window in time, when higher ed was a public good, has left a permanent hole for nostalgia to leak in, becoming a massive black hole for trillions of dollars, and a blind-spot for misguided national policies and scholars alike. 

The notion that American higher education was ever a true public good is largely a myth. From the colonial colleges to the neoliberal university of today, higher education has functioned primarily as a mechanism of class reproduction and elite consolidation—with one brief, historically anomalous exception during the Cold War.

---

Colonial Roots: Elite Reproduction in the New World (1636–1787)

The first American colleges—Harvard, William and Mary, Yale, Princeton, and a handful of others—were founded not for the benefit of the public, but to serve narrow elite interests. Their stated missions were to train Protestant clergy and prepare the sons of wealthy white families for leadership. They operated under monopoly charters and drew funding from landowners, merchants, and slave traders.

Elihu Yale, namesake of Yale University, derived wealth from his commercial ties to the East India Company and the slave trade. Harvard’s early trustees owned enslaved people. These institutions functioned as “old boys’ clubs,” perpetuating privilege rather than promoting equality. Their educational mission was to cultivate “gentlemen fit to govern,” not citizens of a democracy.

---

Private Enterprise in the Republic (1790–1860)

After independence, the number of colleges exploded—from 19 in 1790 to more than 800 by 1880—but not because of any commitment to the public good. Colleges became tools for two private interests: religious denominations seeking influence, and land speculators eager to raise property values.

Ministers often doubled as land dealers, founding small, parochial colleges to anchor towns and boost prices. State governments played a minimal role, providing funding only in times of crisis. The Supreme Court’s 1819 Dartmouth College decision enshrined institutional autonomy, shielding private colleges from state interference. Even state universities were created mainly out of interstate competition—every state needed its own to “keep up with its neighbors.”

---

Gilded Age and Progressive Era: Credential Capitalism (1880–1940)

By the late 19th century, industrial capitalism had transformed higher education into a private good—something purchased for individual advancement. As family farms and small businesses disappeared, college credentials became the ticket to white-collar respectability.

Sociologist Burton Bledstein called this the “culture of professionalism.” Families invested in degrees to secure middle-class futures for their children. By the 1920s, most students attended college not to seek enlightenment, but “to get ready for a particular job.”

Elite universities such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton solidified their dominance through exclusive networks. C. Wright Mills later observed that America’s “power elite” circulated through these same institutions and their associated clubs. Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital helps explain this continuity: elite universities convert inherited privilege into certified merit, preserving hierarchy under the guise of meritocracy.

---

The Morrill Acts: Public Promise, Private Gains (1862–1890)

The Morrill Act of 1862 established land-grant colleges to promote “practical education” in agriculture and engineering. While often cited as a triumph of public-minded policy, the act’s legacy is ambivalent.

Land-grant universities were built on land expropriated from Indigenous peoples—often without compensation—and the 1890 Morrill Act entrenched segregation by mandating separate institutions for Black Americans in the Jim Crow South. Even as these colleges expanded access for white working-class men, they simultaneously reinforced racial and economic hierarchies.

---

Cold War Universities: The Brief Public Good (1940–1970)

For roughly thirty years, during World War II and the Cold War, American universities functioned as genuine public goods—but only because national survival seemed to depend on them.

The GI Bill opened college to millions of veterans, stabilizing the economy and expanding the middle class. Massive federal investments in research transformed universities into engines of technological and scientific innovation. The university, for a moment, was understood as a public instrument for national progress.

Yet this golden age was marred by exclusion. Black veterans were often denied GI Bill benefits, particularly in the South, where discriminatory admissions and housing policies blocked their participation. The “military-industrial-academic complex” that emerged from wartime funding created a new elite network centered on research universities like MIT, Stanford, and Berkeley.

---

Neoliberal Regression: Education as a Private Commodity (1980–Present)

After 1970, the system reverted to its long-standing norm: higher education as a private good. The Cold War’s end, the tax revolt, and the rise of neoliberal ideology dismantled the postwar consensus.

Ronald Reagan led the charge—first as California governor, cutting higher education funding by 20%, then as president, slashing federal support. He argued that tuition should replace public subsidies, casting education as an individual investment rather than a social right.

Since 1980, state funding per student has fallen sharply while tuition at public universities has tripled. Students are now treated as “customers,” and universities as corporations—complete with branding departments, executive pay packages, and relentless tuition hikes.

---

The Circuit of Elite Network Capital

Today, the benefits of higher education flow through a closed circuit of power that links elite universities, corporations, government agencies, and wealthy families.

1. Elite Universities consolidate wealth and prestige through research funding, patents, and endowments.

2. Corporations recruit talent and license discoveries, feeding the same institutions that produce their executives.

3. Government and Military Agencies are staffed by alumni of elite universities, reinforcing a revolving door of privilege.

4. Elite Professions—law, medicine, finance, consulting—use degrees as gatekeeping mechanisms, driving credential inflation.

5. Wealthy Families invest in elite education as a means of preserving status across generations.

What the public receives are only residual benefits—technologies and medical innovations that remain inaccessible without money or insurance.

---

Elite Network Capital, Not Public Good

The idea of higher education as a public good has always been more myth than reality. For most of American history, colleges and universities have functioned as institutions of elite reproduction, not engines of democratic uplift.

Only during the extraordinary conditions of the mid-20th century—when global war and ideological conflict made mass education a national imperative—did higher education briefly align with the public interest.

Today’s universities continue to speak the language of “public good,” but their actions reveal a different truth. They serve as factories of credentialism and as nodes in an elite network that translates privilege into prestige. What masquerades as a public good is, in practice, elite network capital—a system designed not to democratize opportunity, but to manage and legitimize inequality.

---

Sources:
Labaree (2017), Bledstein (1976), Bourdieu (1984, 1986), Mills (1956), Geiger (2015), Thelin (2019), and McGhee (2025).

Does China Need US Universities for Its Elite Students?

For decades, U.S. universities have served as the finishing school for China’s elite. Children of Communist Party officials, wealthy businesspeople, and top scientists have often ended up at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, or the Ivy League, polishing their English and acquiring the cultural capital necessary for global finance, diplomacy, and technology. At the same time, thousands of middle-class Chinese families have made enormous financial sacrifices to send their children abroad, betting on an American degree as a ticket to upward mobility.

But the question today is whether China still needs U.S. universities to educate its elite.

Shifting Global Power Dynamics

The rise of China’s own research universities has complicated the old narrative. Institutions such as Tsinghua University and Peking University now rank among the top in the world in science, engineering, and AI research. China produces more STEM graduates annually than any other country, and its funding for science and technology rivals that of the U.S. While U.S. universities still command prestige, their monopoly on global academic excellence has weakened.

Politics and National Security

Relations between Washington and Beijing have soured, and U.S. policymakers increasingly view Chinese students as potential security risks. Visa restrictions on STEM fields, FBI investigations into Chinese scholars, and rhetoric about intellectual property theft have chilled the academic exchange. For Chinese elites, the risks of having children in the U.S. — politically and reputationally — are higher than in the 1990s or 2000s.

Yet at the same time, political figures like Donald Trump have openly courted the financial benefits of Chinese enrollment. Trump has said that China can send 600,000 students to the United States — a number that would far exceed current levels — underscoring the contradiction between security anxieties and the revenue-driven priorities of American higher education.

Meanwhile, China has invested heavily in partnerships with Europe, Singapore, and even African nations to build alternative networks of elite education. For some families, sending a child to Oxford or ETH Zurich carries less geopolitical baggage than Harvard or MIT.

The Prestige Factor

Yet prestige is not easily replicated. An Ivy League degree still carries enormous weight, especially in global finance, law, and diplomacy. American universities remain unmatched in their ability to offer “soft power” — connections, cultural fluency, and credibility in international markets. For Chinese elites with ambitions beyond national borders, U.S. universities still provide networking opportunities that cannot be fully duplicated in Beijing, Shanghai, or Shenzhen.

China’s Billionaires Build Private Universities to Challenge Stanford

In recent years, a number of China’s wealthiest business leaders have begun pouring billions into the creation of new private universities. Their ambitions are not modest: to build research institutions that can compete directly with the world’s most elite schools—Stanford, MIT, Oxford, and Harvard.

At first glance, such aspirations sound quixotic. Building a university brand that rivals Stanford typically takes a century of reputation, research, and networking. Yet, in China, examples already exist to show that rapid ascent is possible.

Westlake and Geely as Proof-of-Concept

Westlake University, founded in Hangzhou just seven years ago by leading biologists, is already outperforming global top 100 schools in specific fields, including the University of Sydney and the University of North Carolina. Its model—deep pockets, aggressive recruitment of top scientists, and a narrow focus on high-impact fields—demonstrates that prestige can be manufactured in years rather than generations.

Geely Automotive Group, meanwhile, established its own university to train engineers, feeding talent directly into one of the world’s largest car manufacturers. Today, Geely ranks among the ten biggest automakers worldwide, with its university playing a central role in workforce development.

A Stanford Model with Chinese Characteristics

The parallel to Stanford is intentional. Stanford thrived not only because of academic excellence but because it was embedded in Silicon Valley, benefiting from venture capital, defense contracts, and a culture of entrepreneurship. China’s industrialists are attempting something similar: building universities adjacent to industrial clusters and pairing them with massive R&D investments.

For billionaires, these institutions serve dual purposes: they act as innovation engines and as political insurance policies. In an era when Beijing has cracked down on tech moguls and capital excesses, aligning one’s fortune with education and national advancement offers a form of protection.

Political Constraints and Academic Freedom

The long-term question is whether these billionaire-founded institutions can sustain the openness and intellectual risk-taking that has characterized Stanford and MIT. While China’s system excels in applied sciences and technology, political controls may limit innovation in social sciences and fields that thrive on dissent, debate, and unconventional thinking.

Still, if the aim is dominance in biotech, engineering, AI, and materials science, the model may succeed. In fact, Westlake’s rapid climb already suggests mid-tier Western universities could soon find themselves leapfrogged by Chinese institutions less than a decade old.

A Changing Balance

So, does China need U.S. universities for its elite? The answer is complicated.

• Yes, for families who want global reach, especially in finance, technology entrepreneurship, and diplomacy. The cultural capital of an American education still matters.

• No, for families satisfied with domestic prestige and security. China’s own universities — both traditional public institutions and billionaire-backed ventures — increasingly provide sufficient training for leadership roles.

What is clear is that U.S. universities can no longer assume a steady flow of Chinese elite students. The market has shifted, the politics have hardened, and the prestige gap has narrowed. For American higher education, already struggling with enrollment cliffs and financial strain, this shift could have serious consequences.

---

Sources:

• Institute of International Education, Open Doors Report

• Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET), “Chinese STEM Students in the U.S.”

• Times Higher Education World University Rankings

• South China Morning Post, Why China’s super-rich are spending billions to set up universities

• Guangming Daily, Hello, Westlake University

• CGTN, Westlake University established in Hangzhou

• Geely Automotive Group, Overview

• KE Press Global, China's Billionaires Are Building Universities to Drive Innovation and Stay Politically Favorable

The Right-Wing Roots of EdTech

The modern EdTech industry is often portrayed as a neutral, innovative force, but its origins are deeply political. Its growth has been fueled by a fusion of neoliberal economics, right-wing techno-utopianism, patriarchy, and classism, reinforced by racialized inequality. One of the key intellectual architects of this vision was George Gilder, a conservative supply-side evangelist whose work glorified technology and markets as liberating forces. His influence helped pave the way for the “Gilder Effect”: a reshaping of education into a market where technology, finance, and ideology collide, often at the expense of marginalized students and workers.

The for-profit college boom provides the clearest demonstration of how the Gilder Effect operates. John Sperling’s University of Phoenix, later run by executives like Todd Nelson, was engineered as a credential factory, funded by federal student aid and Wall Street. Its model was then exported across the sector, including Risepoint (formerly Academic Partnerships), a company that sold universities on revenue-sharing deals for online programs. These ventures disproportionately targeted working-class women, single mothers, military veterans, and Black and Latino students. The model was not accidental—it was designed to exploit populations with the least generational wealth and the most limited alternatives. Here, patriarchy, classism, and racism intersected: students from marginalized backgrounds were marketed promises of upward mobility but instead left with debt, unstable credentials, and limited job prospects.

Clayton Christensen and Michael Horn of Harvard Business School popularized the concept of “disruption,” providing a respectable academic justification for dismantling public higher education. Their theory of disruptive innovation framed traditional universities as outdated and made way for venture-capital-backed intermediaries. Yet this rhetoric concealed a brutal truth: disruption worked not by empowering the disadvantaged but by extracting value from them, often reinforcing existing inequalities of race, gender, and class.

The rise and collapse of 2U shows how this ideology plays out. Founded in 2008, 2U promised to bring elite universities online, selling the dream of access to graduate degrees for working professionals. Its “flywheel effect” growth strategy relied on massive enrollment expansion and unsustainable spending. Despite raising billions, the company never turned a profit. Its high-profile acquisition of edX from Harvard and MIT only deepened its financial instability. When 2U filed for bankruptcy, it was not simply a corporate failure—it was a symptom of an entire system built on hype and dispossession.

2U also became notorious for its workplace practices. In 2015, it faced a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit after firing an enrollment director who disclosed her pregnancy. Women workers, especially mothers, were treated as expendable, a reflection of patriarchal corporate norms. Meanwhile, many front-line employees—disproportionately women and people of color—faced surveillance, low wages, and impossible sales quotas. Here the intersections of race, gender, and class were not incidental but central to the business model. The company extracted labor from marginalized workers while selling an educational dream to marginalized students, creating a cycle of exploitation at both ends of the pipeline.

Financialization extended these dynamics. Lenders like Sallie Mae and Navient, and servicers like Maximus, turned students into streams of revenue, with Student Loan Asset-Backed Securities (SLABS) trading debt obligations on Wall Street. Universities, including Purdue Global and University of Arizona Global, rebranded failing for-profits as “public” ventures, but their revenue-driven practices remained intact. These arrangements consistently offloaded risk onto working-class students, especially women and students of color, while enriching executives and investors.

The Gilder Effect, then, is not just about technology or efficiency. It is about reshaping higher education into a site of extraction, where the burdens of debt and labor fall hardest on those already disadvantaged by patriarchy, classism, and racism. Intersectionality reveals what the industry’s boosters obscure: EdTech has not democratized education but has deepened inequality. The failure of 2U and the persistence of predatory for-profit models are not accidents—they are the logical outcome of an ideological project rooted in conservative economics and systemic oppression.

---

Sources

• EdSurge. “What a New Strategy at 2U Means for the Future of Online Higher Education.” August 5, 2022. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2022-08-05-what-a-new-strategy-at-2u-means-for-the-future-of-online-higher-education

• Newswire. “2U Faces Lawsuit for Pregnancy Discrimination.” June 2015. https://www.newswire.com/news/2u-faces-lawsuit-for-pregnancy-discrimination

• Christensen, Clayton M. and Michael B. Horn. Disrupting Class. McGraw-Hill, 2008.

• McMillan Cottom, Tressie. Lower Ed: The Troubling Rise of For-Profit Colleges in the New Economy. The New Press, 2017.

• Cellini, Stephanie Riegg. “For-Profit Higher Education: An Assessment of Costs and Benefits.” National Bureau of Economic Research, 2012.

• Rosenthal, Elisabeth. An American Sickness. Penguin, 2017.

Trump’s “Manhattan Project” for AI Chips: U.S. Scrambles as China Reaps Neoliberal Legacy

The Trump administration is reportedly considering an extraordinary intervention in the private sector: partially nationalizing Intel Corp., one of America’s leading semiconductor manufacturers. Sources say the government is exploring a stake in the company—a move experts liken to the Manhattan Project or the early space race.

MIT AI computer scientist Dave Blundin described the effort on a podcast with MIT engineer Peter Diamandis as “every bit as important as the space race was, as the nuclear arms race was. Actually, it’s more important.” Intel’s advanced semiconductor capabilities could reduce U.S. dependence on foreign fabrication plants, particularly in Taiwan, which controls more than 60 percent of global chip production.

Decades of Missteps

Yet the urgency behind the move is rooted not in technological inevitability, but in decades of strategic missteps. Neoliberal policies pursued by U.S. administrations and corporate elites deliberately outsourced manufacturing and critical technology to China to cut labor costs. Over time, this strategy handed Beijing a decisive advantage in semiconductors, AI, and advanced technology, leaving the United States reactive and vulnerable.

The potential nationalization of Intel—a step usually reserved for wartime or extreme crises—signals a dramatic departure from free-market principles. By directly involving the federal government in a major private firm, the administration privileges corporate elites, bypassing both market competition and public accountability. Intel declined to comment on the discussions but emphasized its commitment to supporting the administration’s technology and manufacturing priorities.

China and Taiwan

Blundin warned the move puts the industry on a “war footing,” likening it to a mobilization for conflict, with supply chains and fabs as the battlefield. Analysts stress urgency: China may attempt to take over Taiwan sooner rather than later. Unlike the United States, China operates under a coordinated, authoritarian system that fuses government strategy and industrial capacity to dominate global technology—a stark structural advantage over the fragmented, elite-driven U.S. approach.

Recent deals highlight the U.S.’s reactive posture. Last week, Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) agreed to hand over 15 percent of their chip sales revenue in China to the U.S. government in exchange for export licenses. Experts warn that while these arrangements provide short-term financial gains, they also strengthen China’s AI and military capabilities. Liza Tobin, former China director at the National Security Council, called the deal “an own goal” likely to incentivize Beijing to escalate its technology development and demand further concessions.

Trump has also threatened a 100 percent tariff on imports unless chips are manufactured domestically. If Intel is partially nationalized, it would mark one of the most significant government interventions in U.S. industry in decades—demonstrating both a departure from free-market capitalism and a concentration of power in the hands of elites.

The U.S.’s current scramble illustrates a deeper crisis. Decades of neoliberal policies, elite capture, and weakening democratic institutions have left the nation ill-prepared to compete against a strategically unified authoritarian China. Semiconductor leadership is no longer just an economic or technological matter—it is a test of whether the United States can reclaim strategic sovereignty while defending democracy and free-market principles, or whether it will continue to lose ground to authoritarian advantage.

Sources: Bloomberg, Financial Times, The New York Times, MIT Podcast with Dave Blundin & Peter Diamandis

Trump Sends West Virginia National Guard to D.C. Without Consulting Mayor Bowser

President Donald Trump has doubled down on his federal intervention in Washington, D.C., calling in reinforcements from West Virginia’s National Guard. The decision, announced August 16, marks an intensification of Trump’s so-called “Making D.C. Safe and Beautiful” campaign, a project already criticized for its political theater and disregard for local autonomy.

The deployment—300 to 400 West Virginia Guard troops—comes just days after Trump invoked Section 740 of the Home Rule Act to seize temporary control of the District’s police. This was the first time any president has used that provision. Combined with D.C.’s own Guard, the new arrivals bring the total number of federally-controlled troops patrolling the capital to more than 800.

The move was made without the consent of D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who has called the intervention “unsettling and unprecedented.” Attorney General Brian Schwalb has already filed suit to block Trump’s attempt to install a federally appointed “emergency police commissioner.” Both argue the administration has violated the spirit, if not the letter, of Home Rule.

---

A Manufactured Emergency—And a Convenient Distraction

The federal escalation follows the sensationalized “Big Balls” assault—an incident Trump quickly used to justify invoking sweeping emergency powers. As Higher Education Inquirer previously reported, Trump has leaned heavily on this case to stir fear and project strength, despite the fact that violent crime in D.C. is currently at a 30-year low.

But there’s another layer: the timing. Trump’s deployment of out-of-state Guard troops comes as media scrutiny of the Epstein case intensifies, including renewed focus on how elite institutions enabled and benefited from Epstein’s money. Harvard, MIT, and other universities took his donations, gave him influence, and in some cases provided a veneer of legitimacy to a man whose connections to Trump and other powerful figures remain politically toxic.

The “crime emergency” narrative serves not only as a pretext for overriding D.C.’s fragile autonomy—it also provides the administration with a diversionary spectacle, drowning out scandals that link Trump to Epstein and, by extension, to the culture of impunity within higher education and elite philanthropy.

---

Projection of Strength at Home, Weakness Abroad

Trump’s militarized display in the capital also serves as a contrast to his failure with Vladimir Putin over Alaska’s northern shipping lanes. As climate change opens new Arctic passages, Russia has aggressively asserted control. Trump’s administration has made bold promises to defend U.S. interests, but negotiations with Putin have yielded little. Instead, Russia continues to expand its military and commercial footprint while the U.S. presence stagnates.

Unable to project strength against Putin in the Arctic, Trump has turned to the symbolic occupation of Washington, D.C., where he can choreograph troops and police on American streets. It is authoritarian theater at home to mask diplomatic impotence abroad.

---

State Militias in the Capital

West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey framed the troop deployment as an act of patriotism, fulfilling a request from the Trump White House. But for many in D.C., the symbolism is chilling: a president calling on a neighboring state’s militia to police residents of a city that already lacks voting representation in Congress.

This arrangement underscores the fragility of D.C.’s democratic status. Residents now face not just local disenfranchisement, but the visible presence of outsiders in military fatigues patrolling their neighborhoods—all while national attention is steered away from elite corruption and foreign policy failure.

---

The Bigger Picture

Trump’s willingness to override the District’s autonomy fits neatly into a broader pattern of authoritarian spectacle. The militarized presence on D.C.’s streets may reassure his supporters, but it raises grave questions about precedent. If a president can federalize a city’s police and import out-of-state Guard troops in a moment of historically low crime, what is to stop him from doing so elsewhere?

And just as important: how many of these “emergencies” are staged diversions to shield him from accountability—not only for his political record, but for his ties to Epstein and his inability to stand up to Putin in Alaska?

For HEI, this story is not just about Washington. It is about how crisis politics and higher education’s complicity in elite networks of power intersect to protect the wealthy and connected, while ordinary citizens and students are left with militarized streets, unpayable debts, and shrinking democratic rights.

---

Sources

• Reuters: West Virginia governor to deploy National Guard troops to U.S. capital

• Politico: West Virginia deploys hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington

• Washington Post: D.C. to see more federal troops as Trump pushes to extend emergency

• Time: White House backs off ‘hostile takeover’ of D.C. police after lawsuit

• HEI: Trump Exploits the ‘Big Balls’ Assault

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global Highlights

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

• China: 217,000+ publications.

• United Kingdom: Over 109,000 publications

• Australia: 92,000+ publications

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

Top 10 Global Universities for AI Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENDS

About Studocu:

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

Methodology

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

The final ranking was based on a weighted index:

• Computer Science average ranking (75%)

• Citation score (15%)

• Number of AI publications (5%)

• AI publications per student (5%)

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

Juiced: How HEI Uses AI—and Why Humans Still Matter

At the Higher Education Inquirer, we report on the structures that shape—and often distort—American higher education. We focus on debt, power, labor, and policy. We also use tools that help us do that work better. Artificial Intelligence is one of them. This article explains how we use AI, what concerns it raises, and why our work remains human-centered.

AI helps us review large volumes of documents, spot patterns in legal filings and government data, and summarize long reports. It helps us write more clearly and publish more regularly. It’s a tool—fast, tireless, and useful when used with care.

But we don’t trust it blindly. AI is being used in journalism and education in ways that often sidestep accountability. It generates articles, grades essays, writes marketing material, and shapes student profiles. In doing so, it introduces errors, reinforces bias, and reduces complex decisions to code. It can create false citations, misidentify sources, and spread misinformation.

AI is also replacing workers. In journalism, it’s cutting out editors and reporters. In education, it’s being sold as a cheaper alternative to faculty and staff. These changes don’t just affect paychecks. They affect trust, accuracy, and depth of understanding.

There are environmental costs too. AI requires large amounts of energy and water. Data centers draw on power grids and aquifers, often in areas already dealing with scarcity. Universities and media companies using AI at scale contribute to this footprint, even while promoting sustainability elsewhere.

There’s also the issue of psychological stress. AI-generated content is flooding screens. The volume of material, much of it shallow or repetitive, can lead to overload and distraction. Readers struggle to filter what matters. Attention suffers. The noise grows.

That’s why we still do the core of our work by hand. We write, edit, and fact-check each piece. We ask questions AI can’t: Who gains? Who loses? What’s the history? What’s being left out?

We don’t treat journalism as a technical task. It involves judgment, memory, and responsibility. AI can assist with certain parts of the process. It cannot replace what matters most.

We use AI because it helps us get more done. But we use it carefully. We know how technology can be misused in education and media. And we know the limits of what machines can do.

Sources:

American Press Institute, “How AI is Changing the Newsroom”
Columbia Journalism Review, “AI and the End of News as We Know It?”
Mozilla Foundation, “The Ethical Risks of Generative AI”
U.S. Department of Education, “Use of AI in Higher Ed: Opportunities and Concerns”
MIT Technology Review, “AI’s Carbon Footprint Is Bigger Than You Think”
Nature, “The Environmental Toll of AI”
American Psychological Association, “The Impact of Digital Overload on Mental Health”

The Higher Education Inquirer is an independent, human-run publication investigating power and inequality in U.S. higher education.

Release All the Epstein Files

More than five years after Jeffrey Epstein’s suspicious death in federal custody, the full truth about his vast network of sexual abuse, elite privilege, and systemic protection remains locked behind closed doors. Despite high-profile arrests, mainstream media coverage, and multiple court battles, the U.S. government and key institutions—including major universities—have still not released the complete set of Epstein-related documents. The Higher Education Inquirer joins growing public calls: release all the Epstein files now.

This is not just about one man or even a circle of powerful friends. It is an indictment of a broader system—a grotesque synergy of patriarchy and neoliberalism—that enables elite impunity while systematically devaluing the lives of the vulnerable.

The Web of Secrecy

The known facts are damning enough. Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offender with deep ties to academia, finance, royalty, and intelligence services, was allowed to operate with virtual impunity for decades. He funded elite universities like Harvard and MIT. He gained legitimacy through connections to figures like Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Prince Andrew, and tech moguls. He was gifted a sweetheart plea deal in Florida in 2008, allowing him to avoid serious jail time despite credible allegations from dozens of underage survivors.

Even after his re-arrest in 2019, the system again failed: Epstein died in custody under circumstances that have never been credibly explained. Key surveillance footage went missing. Guards fell asleep. No high-ranking accomplices were charged—only Ghislaine Maxwell, who remains silent behind bars.

Court documents have trickled out—most recently in January 2024, when hundreds of pages from a defamation suit involving Virginia Giuffre were unsealed. But these documents were heavily redacted and incomplete. Names were obscured. The network remains only partially visible. The Department of Justice, the FBI, and several universities still withhold key information under claims of “privacy” and “national security.”

Whose privacy? Whose security? Certainly not that of the survivors.

An Indictment of Patriarchy

At its core, this is a story about the exploitation of women and girls, enabled by a patriarchal power structure that routinely protects the powerful at the expense of the powerless. Epstein's crimes were not hidden in a shadowy underworld—they were committed in mansions, on private islands, in Ivy League offices, and aboard private jets.

Many of his victims were teenage girls from economically precarious families. Some were Black, Latina, or Eastern European. They were groomed, trafficked, silenced, and disbelieved. Their trauma was commodified while their abuser was shielded by lawyers, donors, and university administrators.

To treat this merely as a “sex scandal” is to ignore the structural forces at work. Epstein's operation was not a fluke; it was a feature of a society that commodifies women's bodies, deifies the ultra-wealthy, and demands obedience from institutions that should serve the public interest.

A Neoliberal Failure

Epstein’s reach into higher education and finance is a symptom of neoliberalism’s rot: where ethics are subordinated to endowments, where philanthropy buys silence, and where universities compete for the favor of billionaires rather than serve truth or justice.

How did a man with no college degree and no scientific credentials end up with offices at Harvard and deep ties to MIT’s Media Lab? Why did major figures—Bill Gates, Alan Dershowitz, Larry Summers, Marvin Minsky, and others—accept meetings, flights, and funding without asking harder questions? And why have most of these institutions still not released full internal reviews?

Neoliberal higher education sold its soul for prestige and funding. By chasing Epstein’s money, it became complicit.

This is also true of elite media and political networks. Many journalists, editors, and executives knew about Epstein years before 2019. ABC News reportedly squashed a story in 2015. Powerful names pressured platforms and prosecutors. A “free press” operating under corporate control often becomes an accomplice to coverup.

What’s at Stake

By continuing to withhold the Epstein files, U.S. institutions deepen public distrust and prolong injustice. Survivors deserve full accountability. The public deserves to know who participated, who enabled, and who covered it up.

This is not about voyeurism or scandal-chasing. It is about transparency, justice, and systemic reform. We cannot begin to dismantle the structures that enabled Epstein without exposing them fully.

There is no legitimate reason for the government, law enforcement, or publicly funded universities to sit on thousands of sealed documents—especially when they may implicate individuals who still hold influence over public policy, education, and media.

Release Everything

We call for:

• The Department of Justice to release all non-classified documents related to Epstein, including client lists, flight logs, financial records, and communications.

• Universities like Harvard, MIT, and Arizona State to disclose all funding sources, correspondence, and internal reviews involving Epstein and his associates.

• All sealed court filings involving Epstein and Maxwell—unless doing so would endanger survivors—to be made public.

• An independent, survivor-led truth and reconciliation commission to oversee disclosure and redress.

The Fight Is Bigger Than Epstein

Jeffrey Epstein is dead, but the system that protected him is very much alive. It is a system built on patriarchal control, neoliberal corruption, and elite impunity. Releasing the files is a first step toward dismantling that system.

Until then, every redaction is an act of complicity. Every delay is a betrayal of justice.

Release all the Epstein files. Now.

---

If you are a survivor of sexual violence or abuse and need support, call the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 800.656.HOPE (4673). Confidential help is available 24/7.

Are the Epstein Files the Watergate of Our Time?

In 1972, what began as a bungled break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington’s Watergate complex evolved into the most consequential political scandal in American history. It wasn’t the break-in itself that brought down President Richard Nixon—it was the coverup. Lies, payoffs, destroyed evidence, abuse of executive power, and a relentless pursuit of secrecy sealed Nixon’s fate.

Half a century later, the Jeffrey Epstein files are on a similar trajectory. What began as a tabloid sideshow—one man’s grotesque crimes against underage girls—has expanded into a sprawling network of implications: elite universities, billionaire financiers, royalty, technocrats, and intelligence agencies. And just like Watergate, the defining features of the Epstein scandal aren’t only the initial crimes—they’re the coverups, the deflections, and the institutional complicity.

A Scandal that Unfolds in Chapters

The Epstein story didn’t start with his death in 2019, and it certainly didn’t end there. He was investigated as early as the 2000s yet shielded by a sweetheart plea deal in 2008 that allowed him to serve minimal time for crimes that should have resulted in a much longer sentence. That deal—engineered by powerful lawyers and signed off by then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta—was kept secret from his victims. It was only years later that investigative journalists, lawsuits, and survivors' voices pried open the narrative.

Now, like Watergate, the scandal is metastasizing. Documents are being unsealed. Names are being named. Flight logs, visitor lists, photographs, financial records—each leak peels back another layer of the rot.

Institutional Rot, From the Top Down

Watergate wasn’t just a story of Nixon. It implicated the Republican National Committee, the CIA, the FBI, the “Plumbers” unit, and a pliant media and political class that initially hesitated to challenge the president. In a similar fashion, the Epstein Files have exposed systemic failures: from elite prep schools and Ivy League universities to global charities, private equity firms, and even U.S. intelligence operatives.

Epstein and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell didn’t operate alone. They thrived within a network of institutional silence. Epstein was welcomed at Harvard, funded by billionaires like Leslie Wexner, and given extraordinary leniency by prosecutors. The failure of universities to sever ties or meaningfully investigate their own connections to Epstein even after his 2008 conviction raises profound questions about the moral and financial capture of higher education.

Who wrote the letters of recommendation for Epstein? Who invited him to donor events, to academic conferences, to think tanks? What projects did he fund, and what strings came attached?

The Coverup Is the Crime

Much like Nixon’s use of hush money and illegal surveillance, the most damning revelations around Epstein involve the lengths powerful people have gone to erase their ties to him. Redacted documents. Sealed depositions. Delayed FOIA requests. Lost visitor logs. Sudden retirements and vague institutional statements.

Corporate media, until recently, treated the Epstein case as either too salacious or too risky. ABC News famously shelved a major investigation in 2015. Several news outlets still soft-pedal the extent of his connections to tech giants, universities, and political figures across both parties. The deafening silence has often been more telling than what is reported.

Yet the momentum is building—slowly, relentlessly. Like the drip-drip-drip of Watergate, what seemed like isolated facts are cohering into a more damning pattern. Epstein wasn’t just a lone predator. He was a central node in a larger architecture of exploitation, enabled by elite respectability, money, and the hunger for power.

Higher Education’s Reckoning

The Higher Education Inquirer has been tracking how elite institutions have served not only as places of learning but also as sanctuaries of elite impunity. In the case of Epstein, this includes:

• Harvard University, which accepted millions from Epstein even after his conviction and granted him office space.

• MIT’s Media Lab, whose director Joi Ito resigned after revelations he solicited Epstein’s donations.

• The Rockefeller University, where Epstein sat on the board and mingled with researchers.

• Multiple academic scientists and economists, some of whom continued to associate with Epstein, take his money, or attend events at his private island.

These universities are not just incidental characters in this drama. They are complicit actors—providing legitimacy, laundering reputations, and perpetuating a culture of silence in exchange for funding and access.

Will There Be Accountability?

Watergate ultimately led to resignations, prosecutions, and a moment of institutional introspection. It also helped usher in reforms—some lasting, some temporary.

Will the Epstein saga yield the same? That remains to be seen.

Powerful institutions are betting on public fatigue. They’re hoping the files will dribble out slowly enough, redacted enough, buried behind other headlines. But history suggests that scandals like these don’t simply vanish. They fester. They resurface. And they eventually break through.

For the public, the Epstein Files are not just about one predator or even his elite network. They’re about a system that protects predators, buries truths, and sells out its integrity for money and access.

Watergate didn’t end with a break-in; it ended with the fall of a president.

The Epstein scandal may yet claim its own giants—if the truth is allowed to breathe.

---

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue its investigation into the role of universities in the Epstein network. If you have information to share, reach out to us securely.

US Higher Education and the Russian Threat

In the shadow of escalating global tensions and an increasingly multipolar world, the U.S. national security apparatus is quietly reassessing risks that extend far beyond the battlefield. One such risk, largely unspoken in polite discourse, is the potential threat posed by some Russian immigrants to the United States—particularly those whose loyalties may lie with Vladimir Putin’s regime or who have deep ties to oligarchic wealth and intelligence networks.

This isn't about xenophobia or painting an entire nationality with a broad brush. Russian Americans contribute enormously to U.S. science, technology, academia, and the arts. But the geopolitical reality demands scrutiny—not silence.

A New Front in a Cold War Revival

The war in Ukraine and the subsequent deterioration of U.S.-Russia relations have reignited Cold War-era anxieties. While the most visible tensions manifest as sanctions, diplomatic expulsions, and cyberwarfare, there’s an insidious undercurrent: the possibility that Russia is using immigration channels—student visas, tech recruitment, business investments—as vehicles for influence, espionage, and destabilization.

U.S. intelligence officials have acknowledged in congressional testimony that Russian intelligence operations remain “one of the most sophisticated and aggressive in the world.” Unlike the overt threats posed by military action, these are threats wrapped in respectability—Ph.D. students at MIT, investors in Silicon Valley, and social media influencers spreading disinformation with Ivy League accents.

The Espionage Pipeline

The FBI and Department of Homeland Security have investigated numerous instances in which Russian nationals—sometimes posing as students or startup founders—were linked to intelligence-gathering operations. The 2010 spy ring that included Anna Chapman, who embedded herself in New York’s financial and academic elite, is just the tip of the iceberg.

Today, the lines between academia, tech, and national security are increasingly blurred. Universities and companies working on sensitive technologies such as AI, quantum computing, and aerospace are high-value targets for Russian and Chinese espionage. The growing presence of Russian nationals in these sectors demands vigilance—not in the form of blanket suspicion, but through rigorous security protocols and vetting.

Oligarchs in Silicon Valley and Miami

Beyond espionage, another concern is the role of Russian capital in American business and education. Since the 1990s, waves of Russian oligarchs—many with Kremlin connections—have funneled money into real estate, startups, and even philanthropic ventures in the U.S. This influx of dark money can buy influence, launder reputations, and even shape policy through think tanks, universities, and political donations.

Many Russian émigrés arrive with legitimate reasons—fleeing Putin's repression or seeking opportunity. But the U.S. must distinguish between those seeking refuge and those seeking leverage.

Universities: A Soft Target

Higher education institutions, desperate for tuition and prestige, often fail to scrutinize international applicants and donors. Some institutions, including top-tier universities, have admitted students and accepted donations without fully assessing the geopolitical implications. The Department of Education has issued warnings and begun cracking down on undisclosed foreign funding, but enforcement remains weak.

The danger is twofold: First, sensitive research and intellectual property may be accessed or exfiltrated. Second, universities can unwittingly serve as platforms for soft power, allowing adversarial states to subtly influence campus discourse, research agendas, and even media narratives.

A Call for Smart Policy, Not Scapegoating

The solution isn’t a blanket ban on Russian nationals or a new Red Scare. It’s nuanced policymaking: tougher vetting for visa applicants in sensitive fields, more transparency in university funding, and stricter rules about foreign investments in key sectors. U.S. institutions—from universities to venture capital firms—must understand that openness without discernment can be exploited.

The U.S. has always been a beacon for the world’s best minds. But in a time of hybrid warfare and information manipulation, national security must be balanced with academic freedom and immigrant inclusion. To ignore this challenge is to leave the door open—not just to students and scholars—but potentially, to spies and saboteurs.

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to investigate the intersection of global power and American academia—where the ideals of open inquiry and democratic values are increasingly under siege from both within and without.

Elite Higher Education and the Epstein Files

The Jeffrey Epstein scandal is not just about the crimes of one man—it is a window into the pathology of elite power in America. At the center of Epstein’s network were not only celebrities and financiers, but the leaders of elite universities, powerful legal minds trained at Ivy League institutions, former presidents, cabinet officials, and judges. These individuals and institutions helped legitimize Epstein, enabled his abuse, and later participated in the cover-up—directly or through willful silence.

Epstein built his power not just through money, but through proximity to institutions that conferred prestige and trust. Harvard University accepted more than $9 million in donations from Epstein, even after his 2008 conviction for soliciting sex from a minor. Epstein was granted office space, invited to events, and listed in directories like a visiting fellow. Harvard only conducted an internal investigation years later, long after the damage had been done. MIT, through its Media Lab, secretly accepted Epstein’s donations while attempting to conceal his involvement. Director Joi Ito was forced to resign, but no criminal or civil penalties were imposed on university leadership. Stanford, the Santa Fe Institute, and other elite academic hubs welcomed Epstein into their conferences, roundtables, and salons. Some researchers claimed ignorance of his criminal record. Others looked away in exchange for funding.

The most visible defenders and enablers of Epstein included powerful figures in law and politics with close ties to elite academia. Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law professor emeritus and one of Epstein’s longtime attorneys, was not only his legal defender but also named in sworn affidavits as someone to whom Epstein trafficked underage girls. Dershowitz has denied all allegations and launched a years-long legal campaign to discredit accusers and journalists. Yet Harvard has remained largely silent about his conduct, choosing not to distance itself meaningfully from a man who helped give Epstein the shield of institutional legitimacy.

Former President Bill Clinton, a Yale Law graduate and darling of global academic initiatives, flew on Epstein’s private jet over two dozen times. He has denied visiting Epstein’s private island or engaging in any misconduct, but flight logs, meeting records, and photos raise questions. Epstein donated to the Clinton Foundation, which partnered with numerous universities and research institutions. Clinton’s elite credentials helped whitewash Epstein’s image, just as Epstein used those connections to advance his own agenda.

The most disturbing developments have occurred more recently, with mounting evidence of a high-level cover-up that has delayed justice and protected powerful men. Government officials tied to elite education—Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Stanford—have played key roles in suppressing evidence. Former U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, a Harvard Law graduate, brokered Epstein’s original 2008 plea deal in Florida. Acosta later claimed he was told Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” When Epstein was arrested again in 2019 and died in federal custody under suspicious circumstances, then–Attorney General William Barr oversaw the investigation. Barr, a Columbia graduate whose father once hired Epstein at the elite Dalton School despite Epstein lacking a degree, later insisted that the death was a suicide. No one in government has ever been held accountable for the failures that followed.

Federal judges reviewing Epstein-related cases and redacting the names of associates have largely come from the Ivy League pipeline. These judges, some of whom clerked for Supreme Court justices, have delayed the release of court documents, citing privacy concerns—often for public figures with deep institutional affiliations. The result has been a legal process that drags on for years while survivors wait for truth and the public is left in the dark.

This convergence of elite academia, elite law, and elite governance shows that the Epstein case is not an outlier but a reflection of a closed system. Epstein embedded himself in elite universities not to learn or teach, but to launder his image and buy access. The universities, desperate for funding and star power, let him. Government officials, trained by and connected to the same institutions, protected him. And when the truth threatened to surface, they slowed the release of files, discredited whistleblowers, and hid behind legal formalities.

What makes this scandal different from others in higher education is not just the scale of abuse, but the depth of institutional complicity. Universities cannot hide behind the claim of ignorance. Government officials cannot pretend to be impartial arbiters of justice when they are protecting their own.

If elite higher education wants to regain any moral authority, it must reckon honestly with the Epstein files—not just the names of those involved, but the systems that allowed it all to happen. That means disclosing donor histories, creating independent oversight mechanisms, and ending the culture of secrecy that shields the powerful. Otherwise, these institutions are not bastions of knowledge—they are sanctuaries for predators in suits and ties.

The real legacy of Jeffrey Epstein is not confined to courtrooms or island estates. It is inscribed in the halls of elite universities, in sealed court records, and in the offices of high-ranking officials who quietly ensured that justice was delayed and distorted. The question is not how this happened—but how many more like him remain hidden, protected by the same structures of prestige and power that allowed Epstein to thrive.

---

Sources
Harvard University Office of the General Counsel, Report Concerning Jeffrey Epstein’s Donations, May 2020
Julie K. Brown, Perversion of Justice: The Jeffrey Epstein Story, Harper, 2021
The New Yorker, “How an Elite University Research Lab Hid Its Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein,” Ronan Farrow, September 2019
The New York Times, “Jeffrey Epstein Visited Clinton White House Multiple Times,” January 2022
Giuffre v. Maxwell court filings, U.S. District Court, SDNY, 2024
Department of Justice, Inspector General reports, 2020–2024
Public statements and court documents from Alan Dershowitz, Alex Acosta, William Barr
MIT Media Lab internal emails obtained by The New Yorker
Law.com reporting on Kirkland & Ellis’ involvement with Epstein’s legal defense
Dalton School employment records and biographical history of William Barr and Donald Barr

Share your stories about life and debt

Student loan debt in the United States has ballooned into a $1.7 trillion crisis, affecting over 43 million borrowers. Beyond the staggering figures, this debt exacts a profound human cost, influencing personal relationships, family dynamics, and long-term financial stability.

The Burden Beyond Graduation

For many, student loans are not just a financial obligation but a lifelong burden. A report by Demos indicates that an education debt of $53,000 can lead to a $208,000 lifetime loss of wealth. This financial strain often delays or derails significant life milestones. According to the Education Data Initiative, 51% of renting student borrowers have postponed homeownership due to their debt, while 22% have delayed starting a business.

Strained Relationships and Delayed Families

The weight of student debt extends into personal relationships. A study by TIAA and MIT AgeLab found that nearly one-quarter of borrowers reported that student loans have led to conflict within their families. Furthermore, the greater the student loan debt, the more likely borrowers are to delay key life events such as marriage and having children.

Multigenerational Impact

Student debt doesn't just affect individual borrowers; it reverberates across generations. Parents and grandparents often co-sign loans or take on debt themselves to support their children's education. The TIAA and MIT AgeLab study revealed that 43% of parents and grandparents who took out loans for their children or grandchildren plan to increase retirement savings once the student loan is paid off. This shift in financial priorities underscores the long-term impact of educational debt on family financial planning.

Mental Health and Emotional Well-being

Beyond financial implications, student debt significantly affects mental health. A study from Harvard Law School's Center on the Legal Profession found that 65% of borrowers reported that their total student loan debt or monthly loan obligation caused them to feel anxious or stressed. Over 70% of those with debts between $100,000 and $200,000 reported high or overwhelming stress levels.

Policy Shifts and Economic Consequences

Recent policy changes have further complicated the landscape for borrowers. The resumption of student loan collections, including wage garnishments and tax refund seizures, has placed millions at risk. As of early 2025, nearly one in four borrowers are behind on their payments, with over 90 days delinquent . This financial strain not only affects individual borrowers but also poses a threat to overall economic growth, as decreased consumer spending impacts broader economic stability.

Shredding the Fabric of Society 

The student loan crisis is more than a financial issue; it's a pervasive force affecting the fabric of American life. From delayed life milestones and strained family relationships to mental health challenges and economic repercussions, the impact is profound and far-reaching. Addressing this crisis requires comprehensive policy reforms that consider the human stories behind the debt figures. Only then can we hope to alleviate the burden and restore financial freedom to millions of Americans.

Share Your Story

The student loan crisis is more than a financial issue; it's a pervasive force affecting the fabric of American life. From delayed life milestones and strained family relationships to mental health challenges and economic repercussions, the impact is profound and far-reaching.

We want to hear from you. If you or someone you know is grappling with the weight of student debt, please consider sharing your story. Your experiences can shed light on the real-world implications of this crisis and help others understand they're not alone.

To share your story, please email us at gmcghee@aya.yale.edu with the subject line "Student Debt Story." Include your name, location, and a brief summary of your experience. We may feature your story in an upcoming article to highlight the human toll of student debt.

Together, we can bring attention to this pressing issue and advocate for meaningful change.

Harvard Removes 800 Graduate Students From Union, Citing Employment Status

Harvard University has removed roughly 800 graduate students from the Harvard Graduate Students Union–United Auto Workers (HGSU-UAW), asserting that they are not employees and therefore not entitled to union representation. The move has drawn criticism from labor advocates and student organizers and raises broader questions about the future of graduate labor rights in U.S. higher education.

According to The Harvard Crimson, the affected students receive research-based stipends but do not hold formal teaching or administrative appointments. In recent communications to faculty and the union, Harvard administrators stated that these students “are not employees under the National Labor Relations Act and do not have the right to unionize.” The university said that its position is based on recent rulings by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), including decisions involving similar cases at MIT and Brown University.

Harvard’s message to the union and faculty further claimed that “Harvard has never agreed that non-employees should be included in the unit.” This interpretation removes a substantial portion—approximately 15 percent—of the union’s former membership, weakening its bargaining position just as the union’s initial contract expired at the end of the 2025 fiscal year.

Union leaders have pushed back. Sara V. Speller, president of the HGSU-UAW, told The Crimson that the union is “working closely with the UAW and exploring our options.” The union has previously challenged Harvard’s stance in arbitration and won a favorable ruling related to the inclusion of research-focused psychology graduate students, though that case is now under federal review.

Harvard’s reclassification is not occurring in isolation. It comes in the context of ongoing efforts by elite universities to limit the reach of graduate student unions by drawing a line between academic training and paid labor. While the 2016 Columbia decision by the NLRB affirmed that graduate students at private universities could be classified as employees, recent decisions under a changing board composition have opened the door for reinterpretation. Harvard's legal strategy appears aligned with these more conservative rulings.

The Higher Education Inquirer has long supported the labor rights of contingent faculty, staff, and student workers, including graduate students whose research and teaching responsibilities serve as critical infrastructure in the academic enterprise. The removal of 800 graduate students from union protections reflects a broader pattern of university administrations attempting to limit collective bargaining power and redefine the boundaries of academic labor.

The implications of Harvard’s decision go beyond Cambridge. As other universities monitor the fallout, they may follow suit, especially as labor board interpretations shift with the political winds in Washington. In this climate, labor unions representing graduate students, adjunct faculty, and staff will need to navigate an increasingly complex terrain—one where administrative classification may determine who gets a voice at the bargaining table.

Graduate students affected by the reclassification may continue receiving stipends and conducting research, but they will no longer have access to grievance procedures, union-led negotiations, or other protections afforded to employees. Those who also serve as teaching fellows or hold research assistantships tied to grants will retain their union eligibility—for now.

For many observers, this case underscores the fragility of labor rights in higher education. It also reveals the persistent tension between the educational missions universities claim to uphold and the employment realities that sustain their operations. As Harvard redefines its labor boundaries, the national debate about who counts as a worker in academia grows sharper—and more urgent.