Higher Education – Nowhere to Go (Gary Roth)

 “All we want are the facts, ma’am.” Jack Webb, from the television series, Dragnet (1951-1959)

If it were a matter of the facts alone, the right-wing attack on higher education would be unintelligible. From the attacks, one might think that the college scene is hugely skewed in favor of the underrepresented students towards whom diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives are directed. Yet, a quick glance at census data (Chart 1) shows that collegiate admissions fairly accurately reflect the diversity that marks the population as a whole.

DEI initiatives are focused on the racial and ethnic differentials that have characterized the admission, retention, and graduation of college students, as defined by the broad demographic categories used in government publications and legislation. While initial enrollment rates have narrowed, they are still considerable gaps between groups, especially when the performance of Asian students are part of the comparison. Whites, Blacks (African Americans), and Hispanics (Latinx) lag some 20-25 percent behind. Larger disparities also define retention and graduation rates, over which colleges and universities seemingly have greater impact.[1] DEI initiatives are aimed at these interlocking factors.

Noteworthy in the data about higher education is the dramatic falloff in White participation. Whites are the only demographic group whose participation in higher education is less than their proportion in the general population, while every other group has either held their own or increased their collegiate participation beyond their presence within the general population.

The situation facing Whites has been interpreted in two broad and seemingly contradictory manners. In one, Whites, especially from the working class, are mired in a deep crisis that manifests in a decline in longevity, catastrophic rates of drug (fentanyl) and alcohol addiction, a paranoid perception of reality that leads to high rates of gun ownership, and a propensity to adopt outlandish theories regarding political behavior.

The other interpretation views Whites as a group that can heavily rely on kinship and friendship networks, neighborhood contacts, and their identity as Whites as means to procure jobs, thus obviating the need for a collegiate education as a pathway to employment. It is also possible that these two interpretations are flipsides of the same phenomenon, of a working class that is both relatively favored (privileged) vis-à-vis underrepresented minorities and deeply depressed regarding its present and future possibilities.

In hindsight, the fault of DEI programs is not their attention to African American and Latinx students, but their failure to include White students in their initiatives. Nonetheless, this limitation does not affirm the right-wing criticisms. Genuine concern would call not for the dismantling of DEI initiates, but for extra funding and a broadened scope. Instead, for the right, it is the group with the lowest rate of participation in higher education that becomes the vantage point for viewing the achievements of everyone else.

CHART 1 – RACIAL & ETHNICITY DIVERSITY^[2]

(in percents)	Higher Education	US Population
Asian	8	6
Black (African American)	13	13
Hispanic (Latinx)	22	19
White	52	59
Two or More Races (Multiracial)	4	2

The right-wing has focused on state universities because of their use of government funds. Less obvious is the attention paid to the privately-governed and privately-endowed top-tier schools such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (HYP). In 2022, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton each limited their admissions to 2, 3, and 6 percent of their respective applicant pools, a level of selectivity found among other top-tier institutions as well. Considering that one-quarter of 4-year baccalaureate institutions abide by ‘open admissions’ policies, through which any applicant who satisfies the minimum entrance requirements and can afford the tuition and fees is admitted, and that only 10 percent of institutions accept less than half of their applicants, this indeed is a rarified situation.[3]

Each of these three institutions is characterized by a similar student demographic profile:

CHART 2 – RACE AND ETHNICITY AT TOP-TIER INSTITUTIONS^[4]

(in percents)	Harvard	Yale	Princeton
Asian	21	22	24
Black	9	8	8
Hispanic	12	15	10
White	35	35	38
Non-Resident Alien (International)	13	10	12
Two or More Races	7	7	7

Of upmost importance in terms of diversity is that no single group at any of the three institutions dominates demographically, a circumstance true at other top-tier institutions as well. When on campus, everyone belongs to a minority. Top-tier institutions now mirror the situation that developed at urban public institutions a quarter of a century ago. While whites remain the largest group, they no longer form the majority of the student population.

The top-tier colleges have embarked on a huge endeavor to integrate and diversify the top tiers of American society, insofar as their graduates are destined for lofty careers in business, government, the professions, academe, and in the non-profit sector. But despite the diversity at these institutions, traditionally underrepresented groups—specifically, Blacks and Hispanics—remain underrepresented. Diversity has not benefitted them in such a fashion that they attend top-tier colleges in numbers that reflect their overall participation in higher education or their presence in the population at large (Charts 1 and 2).

Alongside the underrepresentation of Blacks and Hispanics comes the underrepresentation of Whites. The group with the highest rates of college enrollment are Asians, yet they have not been a essential component of DEI efforts. Rather, it has been the stagnating middle that has been its focus.

Socioeconomic diversity is another area to which top-tier institutions have turned their attention, a development that began in earnest around the start of this century. In higher education, socioeconomic diversity is typically measured by the percent of students who receive Pell grants, the federally-funded awards that are based on a student’s family income. Complicated formulas determine who is eligible and the size of the award, but roughly, a family of three whose total income is less than $50,000 qualifies for the maximum.

Regardless of the details, the percent of a student body that receives Pell grants gives some measure of its socioeconomic diversity, that is, the degree to which an institution recruits its students from the bottom income tiers of society. In rough terms, it is a measure of an institution’s appeal to applicants from working- and lower-middle class backgrounds, groups for whom access to top-tier institutions has been extremely limited.

At HYP, nearly one in five students are drawn from these two strata. This remarkable transformation has been made possible by the extensive endowments (in the billions of dollars) at each of the institutions:

CHART 3 – SOCIOECONOMIC DIVERSITY AT TOP-TIER INSTITUTIONS[5]

(in percents)	Harvard	Yale	Princeton
Socioeconomic Diversity	16	19	20

In terms of class, race, and ethnicity as a composite, these institutions have achieved a level of diversity that few other institutions of higher education in the US have been able to match. In this broad sense, the top-tier institutions are the model for DEI initiatives across higher education and also the target for criticisms of those initiatives.

It is cheaper for all students, except for the wealthiest, to attend schools such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton than to attend nearby publicly-funded flagship institutions. For a family with an annual income under $30,000, the out-of-pocket contribution (costs minus grants) calculates to $5,900. Were that same student to attend the flagship public university in Massachusetts, UMass-Amherst, the out-of-pocket contribution would be $10,858. Analogous calculations are possible for all income groups except for the very highest. Only top-earning families face a situation where it is cheaper to attend a public flagship than a private top-tier institution:

CHART 4 - ANNUAL NET COST OF ATTENDANCE[6]

(family income)	Harvard	UMass-Amherst
Less than $30,000	$5,900	$10,858
$30,001 - $48,000	$3,002	$11,824
$48,001 - $75,000	$4,180	$15,768
$75,001 - $110,000	$17,037	$22,651
Over $110,001	$54,634	$29,809

Similar juxtapositions are possible for Yale and the University of Connecticut-Storrs, Princeton and nearby Rutgers-New Brunswick, and all other top-tier institutions in comparison to the flagship public universities in their respective states.

Yet, as diverse as the top-tier institutions are, they still lag higher education in general, where nearly one in three (30 percent) receive an income-based federal (Pell) grant. As with elsewhere in higher education, the ability-to-pay remains a primary consideration of the admissions process.

The next developments within higher education are far from clear, if only because the global situation in which it is embedded is undergoing a rapid and thoroughgoing transformation. It is hard to imagine that colleges and universities will be able to move beyond the levels of diversity they have achieved so far. Not even the wealthiest of collegiate institutions have been able to assemble student bodies that faithfully reflect the diversity of the population.

Collegiate enrollments have stagnated for over a decade already, and all collegiate enterprises—except for the wealthy, top-tier institutions—are scrambling to shore up their financing. Government largesse, during an era in which any large increase in public spending threatens to re-inflate the economy, is not to be expected, no matter who is in control.

The liberal agenda is stalled and in any case aims to maintain the status quo of the recent past, no matter how inadequate it has been. The right-wing agenda is focused on budget cuts as a means to reduce taxes, primarily for people who already squander their money in speculative investments and junkets into outer space. Perhaps the right-wing attack on higher education is best understood in this light, not according to the facts but as an off-kilter means to cut government spending and also undermine any commitment to social goals that might get in the way. Neither liberal society nor its right-wing corollary has a vision of a better future.

[1] Jennifer Ma and Matea Pender, “Education Pays 2023: The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals and Society,” College Board, Education Pays 2023, Figures 1.1B, 1.6A; A. Gardner, A., “Persistence and Retention: Fall 2020 Beginning Postsecondary Student Cohort,” June 2022, National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, PersistenceRetention2022.pdf, Figure 2a.

[2] National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics 2023, Digest of Education Statistics-Most Current Digest Tables, Tables 101.20, 306.10.

[3] National Center for Education Statistics. “Characteristics of Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions,” August 2023, Characteristics of Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions.

[4] US Department of Education, 10 October 2024, College Scorecard. For each institution, see the listings under Campus Diversity, Race/Ethnicity.

[5] US Department of Education, 10 October 2024, College Scorecard. For each institution, see the listings under Campus Diversity, Socio-Economic Diversity.

[6] US Department of Education, 10 October 2024, College Scorecard. For each institution, see the listings under Cost, Average Annual Cost.

The Disillusioned Young Man and Higher Ed in the US

Across the United States, growing numbers of young men are dropping out—of college, of the labor market, and of public life. They are disillusioned, disappointed, and increasingly detached from the institutions that once promised stability and purpose. Higher education is at the center of this unraveling. For many young men, it has become a symbol of a broken social contract—offering neither clear direction nor tangible reward.

Enrollment numbers reflect this retreat. Women now account for nearly 60 percent of U.S. college students. Men, particularly working-class men, have been withdrawing steadily for years. They are not disappearing from education simply out of disinterest—they are being priced out, pushed out, and in some cases replaced.

College has become a high-risk gamble for those without economic security. Some students take out tens of thousands of dollars in loans and find themselves dropping out or graduating into dead-end jobs. Others gamble in a more literal sense. The explosion of online sports betting and gambling apps has created a public health crisis that is largely invisible. Research shows that college students, particularly men, are significantly more likely to develop gambling problems than the general population. Some have even used federal student aid to fund their gambling. The financial and psychological toll is severe.

Alcohol remains another outlet for despair. While binge drinking has long been part of campus life, it is now more frequently a form of self-medication than social bonding. The stresses of debt, job insecurity, isolation, and untreated mental illness have led many young men to drink excessively. The consequences—academic failure, expulsion, addiction, violence—are often invisible until they are catastrophic.

The education system offers few lifelines. Counseling services are understaffed. Mentorship is scarce. For-profit colleges and nonselective public institutions offer quick credentials but little career mobility. Internships are often unpaid. Adjunct professors, who now make up the majority of the college teaching workforce, are overworked and underpaid, with little time for student engagement. The result is an environment where young men are left to fend for themselves, often without guidance, community, or hope.

Into this vacuum step political influencers who promise meaning and belonging—but offer grievance and distraction instead. Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, has become one of the most recognizable figures appealing to disaffected young men. His message is simple: college is a scam, the system is rigged against you, and the left is to blame. But Kirk’s rhetoric does little to address real economic suffering. Instead of empowering young men with tools for analysis, organizing, or resilience, he offers them a worldview of resentment and victimhood. It's ideology without substance—an escape route that leads nowhere.

Compounding the crisis is the transformation of the U.S. labor market. Union jobs that once offered working-class men decent wages and stability have been gutted by automation, offshoring, deregulation, and union-busting campaigns. The pathways that allowed previous generations to thrive without a college degree have largely disappeared. Retail and service jobs dominate the landscape, with low pay, high turnover, and little dignity.

Meanwhile, higher education institutions have increasingly turned to international students to fill seats and boost tuition revenue. Many universities, especially at the graduate level, rely on international students—who often pay full price—to subsidize their operations. These students frequently gain access to internships, research positions, and jobs in STEM fields, sometimes edging out U.S. students with less financial or academic capital. While international students contribute intellectually and economically to American higher ed, their presence also reflects a system more concerned with revenue than with serving local and regional populations.

This mix of economic decline, addiction, alienation, and displacement has left many young men feeling irrelevant. Some turn to substances. Some drop out entirely. Others embrace simplistic ideologies that frame their loss as cultural rather than structural. But the deeper truth is this: they are caught between institutions that extract from them and influencers who exploit them.

The American higher education system has failed to adapt to the reality of millions of young men who no longer see it as a path forward. Until colleges address the psychological, social, and economic pain these men are facing—until they offer real support, purpose, and value—the disillusionment will deepen. Until labor policy creates viable alternatives through union jobs, apprenticeships, and living wages, higher education will continue to function not as a ladder of mobility but as a mirage.

Sources:
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, Current Term Enrollment Estimates
University at Buffalo, Clinical and Research Institute on Addictions
International Center for Responsible Gaming
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance
Turning Point USA public statements and financial filings
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics: Union Membership Data
Institute of International Education, Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange
The Higher Education Inquirer archives on student debt, labor displacement, and campus disinformation campaigns

Tattoo Regret

For millions of Americans, tattoos were meant to be personal landmarks—bold, permanent declarations of identity. For college students, the decision to get one often happens in the whirlwind of new freedom, campus culture, and peer influence. But as years pass and the ink fades, many find themselves with more than just a physical reminder—they face a costly, time-consuming process of erasure.

The scale of regret is hard to ignore. Surveys suggest that about one in four Americans with tattoos regret at least one of them. That’s roughly 20 million people, and among those aged 18 to 30—prime college years—the number climbs closer to one in three. A dermatology study found that 26 percent of tattooed patients expressed regret, with over 40 percent of them seeking removal or cover-ups. Regret is especially common when tattoos are obtained in late adolescence, when judgment is less mature, or when they are done cheaply, hastily, or in highly visible areas like the forearms, neck, or face.

The economic fallout is familiar to anyone who has studied the for-profit college industry. Just as private lenders profit from the desperation of indebted graduates, the tattoo removal industry thrives on the emotional and professional consequences of youthful decisions. In 2024, the global tattoo removal market was worth more than $1.1 billion and is projected to triple by 2032. In the U.S., the market has ballooned from $65.9 million in 2023 to a forecast of more than $400 million by 2033. Clinics report surges in demand, with some chains—like Removery—expanding to over 150 locations worldwide. Their marketing often mirrors higher education’s own slogans of transformation and reinvention.

The drivers of removal are telling. A tattoo might commemorate a relationship that ended badly, reflect a political or cultural affiliation that’s become toxic, or simply be a relic of a passing trend. Others are driven to removal for professional survival. While tattoos have become more acceptable in creative fields and service work, they can still derail opportunities in education, law, finance, healthcare, and parts of the military. For some, removal is less about a paycheck and more about reclaiming a sense of self from a younger, more impulsive version of themselves.

What higher education often fails to admit is that it plays a role in this cycle. Universities spend heavily on branding campaigns that tell students to “make their mark,” “be fearless,” or “define your identity.” In campus environments where these messages blend with alcohol, peer pressure, and instant access to tattoo parlors, the permanence of a decision is rarely emphasized. Just as with signing loan papers, the cost comes later—often at a time when money is tight and options are few.

The irony is that both industries—higher education and tattoo removal—present themselves as pathways to a better self. One promises the power to transform your future; the other promises to erase your past. And in both cases, it is the young, the inexperienced, and the financially vulnerable who pay the highest price.

Tattoos are not inherently mistakes. They can be art, heritage, or deeply personal affirmations. But when permanence meets the fluid identity of early adulthood, the risk of regret is real. If universities truly see themselves as guiding students toward informed choices, they might start by being honest about the permanence—not just of ink, but of all life decisions made in the shadow of campus marketing campaigns.

Sources:
Fortune Business Insights, Tattoo Removal Market Size, Share, Trends (2024)
GQ, “Why Is Everyone Getting Their Tattoos Removed?” (2024)
WiFi Talents, Tattoo Regret Statistics (2024)
ZipDo, Tattoo Regret Statistics (2024)
NCBI, “Tattoo Removal and Regret: A Cross-Sectional Analysis” (2023)
Allied Market Research, Tattoo Removal Market (2024)
IMARC Group, Tattoo Removal Market Report (2024)
The Times (UK), “Confessions of the Tattoo Removers” (2024)
Herald Sun, “Why Tattoo Removal Is Soaring” (2024)

The Secret and Tragic World of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a man whose name carries the weight of one of America’s most storied political dynasties. Environmentalist, activist, author, and political figure, he has long cultivated a public image of intelligence, idealism, and reform-minded zeal. Yet behind this public persona lies a deeply troubled personal history marked by tragedy, accusations of sexual misconduct, and disturbing claims of animal cruelty. With his rise to the position of Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2025, the stakes of this hidden history have grown far beyond family drama—they now intersect with public health, national science policy, and the higher education ecosystem.

Personal Tragedy and Allegations

Mary Richardson Kennedy, RFK Jr.’s second wife, died by suicide in May 2012. She was found with antidepressants in her system but no alcohol. At the time, the couple was separated, embroiled in a bitter divorce. Later-revealed documents suggest that Mary Richardson described her husband as a “sexual deviant,” alleging prescription-drug abuse and psychological manipulation, including gaslighting. She claimed he secretly recorded more than 60 phone conversations and maintained diaries documenting extramarital relationships. What may have seemed private marital discord became serious allegations of betrayal, manipulation, and emotional trauma.

In 2024, Eliza Cooney, a former live-in babysitter for the Kennedy children, publicly accused Kennedy of sexually assaulting her in the late 1990s. She described multiple incidents, including groping in a pantry, appearing shirtless in her bedroom, and being asked to rub lotion on his back. Kennedy sent Cooney a text apologizing if he had made her feel uncomfortable, claiming he had no memory of the events. Publicly, he called the allegations “a lot of garbage,” framing them as part of a “rambunctious youth” while refusing to categorically deny the events. These allegations, alongside Mary Richardson’s claims, paint a portrait of private behavior in stark contrast to the public image Kennedy has long projected.

Claims of animal cruelty have also surfaced. A 2010 photograph published in media outlets shows Kennedy with what appears to be a charred animal carcass. While Kennedy claims it was a goat from a Patagonia camping trip, a veterinarian quoted in the press suggested it could be a dog. Fact-checkers cannot conclusively identify the animal, yet the image, whether misinterpreted or not, is troubling in the context of someone who has publicly championed environmental and public health causes.

Ascension to HHS and Early Decisions

In February 2025, Kennedy was sworn in as Secretary of HHS, instantly gaining authority over national health policy, agency staffing, and public health programs. His tenure has been marked by swift, controversial moves. Kennedy launched the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) commission, aiming to address chronic disease and childhood illness, with a focus on prevention and environmental health. He has emphasized removing conflicts of interest from advisory committees, arguing that existing members often have ties to pharmaceutical companies.

Kennedy’s tenure has also included a sweeping reorganization of HHS, consolidating its 28 divisions into 15, centralizing administrative functions, and cutting staff from roughly 82,000 to 62,000 in pursuit of $1.8 billion in annual savings. He has defended these changes as necessary to streamline operations and focus on environmental toxicity, clean water, and healthy food, while critics warn they could weaken public health infrastructure and reduce oversight. Perhaps most controversially, Kennedy has moved to eliminate the long-standing practice of public comment on many HHS decisions. Other early actions have included removing expert members from CDC vaccine advisory committees and revising CDC guidance on autism and vaccines in ways aligned with Kennedy’s previously expressed views.

Higher Education and Kennedy’s Influence

Kennedy’s connection to higher education is both personal and institutional. He attended Harvard College, graduating in 1976 with a degree in American history and literature, and went on to earn a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1982. While he has no formal scientific or medical degree, his public role as HHS Secretary gives him authority over federal research funding, grants, and university partnerships.

Since taking office, Kennedy has influenced HHS grants to universities, particularly those focused on public health, environmental research, and childhood disease prevention. Reports indicate he has prioritized funding for schools conducting research aligned with his personal priorities, such as environmental toxicity, vaccine alternatives, and holistic health programs. Critics argue this approach risks politicizing federal funding, favoring institutions that align with his beliefs while disadvantaging traditional biomedical research programs. Some universities have reportedly altered research agendas to secure or maintain grants under Kennedy’s administration, raising concerns about academic independence.

Kennedy’s educational background, combined with his control over grants and research priorities, illustrates how personal ideology and public policy intersect with higher education. It underscores the stakes for universities, faculty, and students: research funding decisions now operate in a landscape influenced by a leader whose private life is controversial and whose professional philosophy challenges established scientific norms.

The Interplay of History, Power, and Trust

The combination of Kennedy’s personal controversies, his public health authority, and his influence on higher education presents a complex portrait of power, legacy, and trust. Allegations from Mary Richardson Kennedy and Eliza Cooney, along with the animal cruelty claims, raise questions about judgment, ethics, and personal responsibility. Now, those questions carry weight far beyond private circles—they intersect with national public health, scientific research, and the education of future professionals.

The public often sees only the polished exterior: speeches, causes, charisma. In Kennedy’s case, the hidden world includes tragic suicide, allegations of sexual misconduct, and disturbing claims regarding animals. These shadows, now coupled with sweeping policy authority and influence over universities, underscore the importance of scrutinizing both character and action. Leadership in public health and science funding is not solely about vision or ambition—it requires judgment, transparency, and accountability.

What Kennedy does next will not just define his legacy; it will shape the health, safety, and education of the country he now serves. For advocates of transparency, survivors of abuse, academic researchers, and public health professionals, watching closely is not optional—it is a civic imperative.

---

Sources

Vanity Fair. “RFK Jr.’s Family Doesn’t Want Him to Run. Even They May Not Know His Darkest Secrets.” 2024. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/robert-kennedy-jr-shocking-history

New York Post. “Mary Kennedy Accuses Ex-Husband RFK Jr. of Being 'Sexual Deviant' and 'Gaslighting' from Beyond the Grave.” 2025. https://nypost.com/2025/01/29/us-news/rfk-jrs-late-wife-accused-him-of-being-sexual-deviant-addict/

Reuters. “Woman Who Accused RFK Jr. of Sexual Assault Says He Apologized by Text.” 2024. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/woman-who-accused-rfk-jr-sexual-assault-says-he-apologized-by-text-2024-07-12/

Forbes. “RFK Jr. Calls Report Alleging He Sexually Assaulted His Children’s Nanny and Ate a Dog ‘A Lot of Garbage.’” 2024. https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2024/07/03/rfk-jr-calls-report-alleging-he-sexually-assaulted-his-childrens-nanny-and-ate-a-dog-a-lot-of-garbage/

WRAL. “RFK Jr. Denies Eating a Dog While Sidestepping Sexual Assault Allegations in Vanity Fair Article.” 2024. https://www.wral.com/story/rfk-jr-denies-eating-a-dog-while-sidestepping-sexual-assault-allegations-in-vanity-fair-article/21508133/

AP News. “RFK Jr. Made Promises About Vaccines. Here's What He's Done as Health Secretary.” 2025. https://apnews.com/article/d1ad570053583d953f15ec3e566e426f

Reuters. “Kennedy Proposes Ending Public Comment on HHS Decisions.” 2025. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/kennedy-proposes-ending-public-comment-hhs-decisions-2025-02-28/

Time. “What to Know About RFK Jr. Removing All Experts From CDC Vaccine Advisory Committee.” 2025. https://time.com/7292553/rfk-jr-removes-cdc-vaccine-committee-experts/

HHS.gov. “Make America Healthy Again Commission Launch.” 2025. https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/eo-maha.html

The Data on Marijuana Harms: A Higher Education Inquirer Perspective

Amid the normalization of marijuana use across the United States, the risks and costs associated with the drug are often minimized or ignored altogether. In academic settings, this normalization presents a public health challenge that intersects with issues of student success, mental health, and institutional responsibility.

Research over the past decade has revealed a set of concerns with both recreational and medical cannabis use—particularly among adolescents and young adults, the age group that encompasses most traditional college students. According to a 2024 report from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), daily marijuana use among college students has reached historic highs, with more than 11% reporting daily or near-daily consumption. While legalization has reduced arrests and the stigma of use, it has also coincided with increases in cannabis-related hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and reported cases of Cannabis Use Disorder (CUD).

Cognitive impacts are especially relevant in educational settings. Multiple longitudinal studies, including those published in JAMA Psychiatry and The Lancet Psychiatry, have linked regular cannabis use with decreased memory, attention, and learning outcomes. These impairments are often more pronounced in individuals who began using the drug in adolescence. A 2022 study conducted at Duke University found measurable IQ decline in long-term users who began before age 18.

There are also growing concerns about the mental health effects of high-potency cannabis products, now commonly available in legal markets. THC concentrations in commercial marijuana have increased significantly in the past two decades, with some concentrates exceeding 80-90% THC. The increased potency has been associated with heightened risks of psychosis, particularly in genetically predisposed individuals. A 2019 study led by researchers in the UK and Europe found that daily use of high-THC cannabis increased the risk of psychotic disorders by a factor of four to five, compared to non-users.

The link between marijuana and anxiety or depression is less clear-cut but increasingly studied. While some individuals use marijuana to self-medicate for anxiety, evidence suggests that chronic use can worsen symptoms over time. Colleges and universities have reported rising levels of anxiety, depression, and suicidality among students, raising questions about whether cannabis use is a contributing factor or a response to already worsening mental health conditions.

Another area of concern is academic performance and persistence. A multi-institution study published in Addictive Behaviors in 2023 found that regular cannabis use was associated with lower GPA and increased likelihood of dropping out. These findings are consistent across different types of institutions—public, private, and community colleges. At the same time, many campus counseling and health centers are ill-equipped to address substance use disorders, particularly those involving marijuana, which is often not viewed as a serious problem by students or staff.

The cannabis industry has also become a lobbying force in education and public health discourse. Legal cannabis companies, like their counterparts in alcohol and tobacco, have invested in youth-oriented branding, influencer marketing, and campus-adjacent advertising. This has occurred with relatively little pushback from higher education institutions or state governments, many of which have financial interests in cannabis tax revenues.

As more states legalize marijuana for recreational or medicinal use, the responsibility of higher education institutions to respond thoughtfully and evidence-based becomes more urgent. Silence or ambiguity can be interpreted as approval. At the same time, overreaction risks alienating students and perpetuating distrust. A public health approach—grounded in data, transparency, and consistent messaging—may offer the most constructive way forward.

Sources:

National Institute on Drug Abuse. “Monitoring the Future Survey, 2024.” University of Michigan Institute for Social Research.
Meier, M. H., et al. (2012). “Persistent cannabis users show neuropsychological decline from childhood to midlife.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Di Forti, M., et al. (2019). “The contribution of cannabis use to variation in the incidence of psychotic disorder across Europe.” The Lancet Psychiatry.
Arria, A. M., et al. (2023). “Marijuana use and academic outcomes among college students: A multi-institution study.” Addictive Behaviors.
Hall, W., & Lynskey, M. (2020). “Assessing the public health impacts of legalizing recreational cannabis use: the US experience.” World Psychiatry.
JAMA Psychiatry. (2021). “Association of cannabis potency with mental health outcomes.”
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). “Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results from the 2022 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.”

Why Dating/Hooking Up Is Not a Good Idea for College Students and New Grads

In an era marked by rising tuition costs, crushing student loan debt, mental health crises, and economic uncertainty, college students and new graduates face mounting pressures from all directions. Amid this storm, the expectation to date—or participate in hookup culture—can seem like a rite of passage. But for many young adults, especially those without privilege or financial safety nets, dating and hooking up can distract from more urgent priorities, expose them to emotional and physical risks, and reinforce the same systems of inequality that exploit them.

It’s time we rethink the glorified image of the college romance and the casual hookup as liberating experiences.

Emotional Labor with Little Return

Dating and especially hooking up are often sold as part of the “college experience.” But what’s rarely discussed is the emotional cost: the anxiety, confusion, and heartbreak that often follow. For young people navigating their identities, finances, and future, romantic entanglements can amplify insecurities and derail emotional stability. Rather than providing intimacy or connection, dating in college often reinforces performative behavior and emotional detachment.

This is especially true in environments dominated by hookup culture, where emotional vulnerability is stigmatized and communication is shallow. A culture of disposability encourages people to use each other for attention or sex, often under the illusion of freedom, when in fact it's a distraction from deeper needs—like belonging, purpose, and healing.

Financial and Time Costs in a Precarious Economy

College students and new graduates are already financially strapped. A “cheap date” may still mean a $40 night out—money that could go toward groceries, transit, or student loan interest. For many working-class students, romantic relationships can add financial burdens they can't afford. Some even take on extra jobs or credit card debt just to impress a partner or maintain appearances.

Time is another critical resource. Hours spent chasing love or sex are hours not spent studying, building networks, applying for jobs, or sleeping. In the high-stakes reality of a declining job market and disappearing middle class, time and energy are luxuries. Romantic distractions can delay career paths, lower GPAs, or worsen burnout.

Exploitation, Power Imbalances, and Gendered Harms

In practice, dating and hooking up are rarely egalitarian. Women, nonbinary students, LGBTQ+ individuals, and students of color often face higher risks of exploitation, coercion, and assault. The Title IX system is overwhelmed and unevenly enforced, and many survivors are left unsupported, retraumatized, or silenced. The cultural normalization of hookup culture—facilitated by dating apps and alcohol-fueled party scenes—often masks deeply entrenched power dynamics.

For young men, toxic masculinity pressures them into performative sexuality and emotional suppression. For women and gender minorities, the stakes can be even higher, involving bodily autonomy, safety, and self-worth.

And while some college relationships are supportive and healthy, many are not. They may involve manipulation, codependence, or even intimate partner violence. At a time when mental health services are underfunded and stigmatized, these dynamics can go unnoticed and untreated.

The Illusion of Liberation Through Dating Apps

Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, and other apps promise connection and empowerment. In reality, they are profit-driven platforms that thrive on superficiality and dissatisfaction. Their algorithms commodify users, pushing us toward endless swiping rather than meaningful interaction. For many students, these apps become addictive distractions—dopamine hits that erode real-world social skills and deepen loneliness.

Moreover, dating apps collect massive amounts of personal data and monetize insecurity. Like the student loan system or the for-profit college industry, they prey on vulnerability and sell back false hope.

Post-Graduation Drift and Relationship Fallout

New graduates face enough instability: uncertain housing, job searches, cross-country moves, and identity crises. Romantic relationships often buckle under this pressure. What seemed like a connection during college may not survive the chaos of adult life. Graduates may find themselves navigating breakups while unemployed, uninsured, or thousands of miles from their support networks.

In worst-case scenarios, toxic relationships extend into early adulthood, delaying independence, or entrenching cycles of emotional or financial dependence. This is especially dangerous for those without parental safety nets or stable careers.

---

Focus on Solidarity, Not Distraction

College students and new graduates don’t need romance or hookups to feel validated. They need community, purpose, and protection in a hostile economy. They need peer networks, mentorship, paid internships, unionized jobs, and access to affordable mental healthcare—not more heartbreak, ghosting, or gaslighting.

The myth of carefree college romance serves the same system that sells the dream of the American meritocracy. It diverts attention from the real structural challenges young people face and seduces them with fantasies that rarely play out as promised.

Rather than chasing validation through dating, young people might be better served investing in themselves, building collective power, and reimagining what intimacy and care can look like outside the logic of profit and performance.

Sources:

• The End of Love by Eva Illouz

• Trick Mirror by Jia Tolentino

• American College Health Association reports

• Pew Research Center on Gen Z dating and loneliness

• CDC: Sexual Violence on College Campuses

• Student Loan Hero: Average student loan debt statistics

• National Center for Education Statistics

• Data from Hookup culture studies, Lisa Wade (Occidental College)

Let the Higher Education Inquirer know your thoughts: contact us at gmcghee@aya.yale.edu.

Weed, Wagering, Warehouses, and Wall Street

As social observers at the Higher Education Inquirer, we have noticed a US youth society showing increasing signs of anxiety and cynicism. Both of these emotions are understandable, but they have to be treated with care. 

This angst among so many young adults shows up not just in suicides and drug epidemics but in many other destructive but subtler ways that don't make the news as much.

Weed dispensaries are growing. It's good that marijuana possession is no longer a crime. But smoking marijuana is not safe. To say it's less dangerous than alcohol may be true, but it's only a rationalization.  

Gambling addictions may also be related to this trend in destructively impulsive thoughts and behaviors.  If your life has little meaning, you can find some meaning in talking about sports and betting with your bros. Betting alone can be worse. 

Doom spending shows that many younger folk are overspending because they have less hope. It's not the same as shopping therapy because the outcome is not feeling better, but of  feeling even worse.  Overall, may help increase the need for warehouses and warehouse jobs, but also damages those around you in ways you may not even see.  

Who Benefits?

The only people who benefit in the long run are those who profit from pain. The people on Wall Street. And the rich people who invest in that pain. In the end, even those people, or their loved ones, may be subject to a cynicism they may be forced to notice.   

Other Possibilities

If you are spending money that could be spent on something else,for the future, you are doing a disservice to yourself and those around you.These trends among US youth are the opposite of youth global trends in frugal living, living that can lead to greater happiness and meaning. 

What the Pentagon Doesn’t Want You to See: For-Profit Colleges in the Military-Industrial-Education Complex

[Editor's note: The Higher Education Inquirer has emailed these FOIA documents to ProPublica and the Republic Report.  We will send these documents to any additional media and any individuals who request for the information. We are also seeking experts who can help us review and decipher the information that has been released.]   

On July 3, 2025, the Higher Education Inquirer received the latest response from the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) regarding FOIA request 22-F-1203—our most recent effort in a nearly eight-year campaign to uncover how subprime and for-profit colleges have preyed on military servicemembers, veterans, and their families. 

The response included confirmation that 1,420 pages of documents were located. But of those, 306 pages were withheld in full, and 1,114 were released only with heavy redactions.  A few for-profit colleges—Trident University International, Grand Canyon University, DeVry University, and American Public University System (which includes American Military University and American Public University)—were specifically mentioned in the partially visible content.

 

And yet the larger truth remains hidden. The names of other institutions known to have exploited military-connected students—University of Phoenix, Colorado Technical University, American InterContinental University, Purdue University Global, and Liberty University Online, among others—were nowhere to be found in the documents we received. Their absence is conspicuous.

We have been pursuing the truth since December 2017, demanding records that would reveal how the DoD enabled these schools to thrive. We sought the list of the 50 worst-performing colleges receiving Tuition Assistance (TA) funds, based on data compiled under Executive Order 13607 during the Obama Administration. That list was never released. When the Trump Administration took power in 2017, they quietly abandoned the protective measures meant to hold these colleges accountable. Our FOIA request DOD OIG-2019-000702 was denied, with the Pentagon claiming that no such list existed. A second request in 2021 (21-F-0411) was also rejected. And now, more than three years after we filed our 2022 request, the DoD continues to deny the public full access to the truth.

The records we did receive are riddled with legal exemptions: internal deliberations, privacy claims, and most notably, references to 10 U.S.C. § 4021, a law that allows the DoD to withhold details of research transactions outside of traditional grants and contracts. In other words, the Pentagon has built legal firewalls around its relationships with for-profit education providers—and continues to shield bad actors from scrutiny.

But the complicity doesn’t end there. It extends deep into the institutional fabric of how the military interfaces with higher education.

Decades of Systemic Corruption

Since the 1980s, the U.S. Department of Defense has worked hand-in-glove with for-profit colleges through a nonprofit called the Council of College and Military Educators (CCME). What began in the 1970s as a noble initiative to expand access to education for military personnel was hijacked by predatory colleges—including the University of Phoenix—that used the organization as a lobbying front.

These schools infiltrated CCME events, using them to curry favor with military officials, often by hiring veterans as on-base sales agents and even providing alcohol to loosen up potential gatekeepers. While CCME publicly maintained the appearance of academic integrity and service, behind the scenes it served as a conduit for lobbying, influence, and enrollment schemes. Military education officers were schmoozed, manipulated, and in some cases, quietly co-opted. This is something you won’t find in CCME’s official history.

We have been told by multiple insiders that the partnership between DoD and these schools was not just tolerated but actively nurtured. Attempts at reform came and went. Investigations were buried. Promises to "do better" evaporated. No one was held accountable. No one went to jail. But the damage has been lasting—measured in ruined credit, wasted benefits, and lives derailed by fraudulent degrees and broken promises.

The Trump-Hegseth Department of Defense

And still, new scandals—except those uncovered by us—go largely unreported. The media has moved on. Congressional attention has shifted. And the same schools, or their rebranded successors, continue to operate freely, often under the protective shadow of military partnerships.

Today, the DoD continues to deny that the DODOIG-2019-000702 list of the 50 worst schools even exists. But we know otherwise. Based on VA data, whistleblower accounts, and independent reporting, we are confident that this list was compiled—and buried. The question is why. And the answer may very well lie in the unredacted names of institutions too politically connected or too legally protected to be exposed.

The Higher Education Inquirer will not stop pushing for those names, those communications, and that accountability. Because behind every redaction is a servicemember who trusted the system—and got scammed. Behind every delay is a taxpayer footing the bill for worthless credentials. Behind every refusal to act is a government too intertwined with profit to protect its own people.

This is not just a story of bureaucratic inertia. It is a story of complicity at the highest levels. And it is ongoing.

Related links:
DoD review: 0% of schools following TA rules (Military Times, 2018)
Schools are struggling to meet TA rules, but DoD isn’t punishing them. Here’s why. (Military Times, 2019)