Search This Blog

Showing posts sorted by date for query bryan alexander. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query bryan alexander. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Tuesday, July 1, 2025

Higher Education Inquirer's Long History, Sudden Rise

Since its founding in 2016, the Higher Education Inquirer has steadily established itself as a reliable, independent source for reporting on the less visible dimensions of American higher education. With a focus on institutional decline, labor conditions, and the growing influence of private interests, the publication has grown from a modest blog into a respected outlet for analysis and first-hand accounts. In June 2025, it surpassed 150,000 views, a milestone that reflects both the persistence of its contributors and the relevance of its subject matter.


HEI's development can be traced through its evolving approach to research and storytelling. In its early years, it introduced the phrase college meltdown to describe the financial and enrollment stress afflicting many institutions, particularly small colleges and for-profits. It later popularized the term edugrift, referring to the role of consultants, investors, and online program managers whose involvement in the sector often escapes scrutiny. These terms were not intended for provocation, but as practical shorthand—frameworks for understanding trends that might otherwise be overlooked or mischaracterized.

Throughout its reporting, the Inquirer has placed a premium on documentation and primary sources. Public records, government datasets, and legal filings form the basis of many investigations. Contributions from whistleblowers have added firsthand depth, while independent experts have offered context and critique. Collectively, these elements have allowed the publication to trace patterns not always visible from press releases or institutional communications.

The work has been shaped by a small group of persistent writers and researchers. In addition to its founding contributors, the platform has featured the voices of David Halperin, Henry Giroux, Bryan Alexander, Michael Hainline, Gary Roth, and Annelise Orleck. Each brings a different lens—legal, sociological, historical—but shares a commitment to rigor and accessibility.

Rather than emphasizing single events, the Higher Education Inquirer has tended to focus on slow-moving structural change: the decline in enrollment at non-selective institutions, the tightening of state budgets, the casualization of academic labor, and the steady rise of administrative cost centers. It has also monitored the effects of algorithmic tools and automation in admissions, advising, and teaching, raising questions about accountability and oversight.

Over time, its readership has broadened to include students, faculty, policy analysts, and reporters seeking an alternative to promotional narratives. The site's growth has been slow but consistent, its audience largely built by word of mouth and citation.

The Inquirer has not positioned itself as a substitute for mainstream coverage, but rather as a complement—an archival and analytical space that focuses on enduring issues rather than fleeting controversies. In doing so, it has provided a place where difficult questions about the purpose and direction of higher education can be raised without distraction.

Thursday, June 26, 2025

Does higher ed still make sense for students, financially? (Bryan Alexander)

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

Is a college degree still worth it?

The radio program/podcast Marketplace hosted me as a guest last week to speak to the question.  You can listen to it* or read my notes below, or both.  I have one reflection at the end of this post building on one interview question.

One caveat or clarification before I get hate mail: the focus of the show was entirely on higher education’s economics.  We didn’t discuss the non-financial functions of post-secondary schooling because that’s not what the show (called “Marketplace”) is about, nor did we talk about justifying academic study for reasons of personal development, family formation, the public good, etc.  The conversation was devoted strictly to the economic proposition.

Marketplace Bryan on Make Me Smart 2025 June

The hosts, Kimberly Adams and Reema Khrais, began by asking if higher ed still made financial sense.  Yes, I answered, for a good number of people – but not everyone.  Much depends on your degree and your institution’s reputation.  And I hammered home the problem of some college but no degree.  The hosts asked if that value proposition was declining.  My response: the perception of that value is dropping.  Here I emphasized the reality, and the specter, of student debt, along with anxieties about AI and politics.  Then I added my hypothesis that the “college for all” consensus is breaking up.

Next the hosts asked me what changing (declining) attitudes about higher education mean for campuses.  I responded by outlining the many problems, centered around the financial pressures many schools are under.  I noted Trump’s damages then cited my peak higher education model.  Marketplace asked me to explain the appeal of alternatives to college (the skilled trades, certificates, boot camps, etc), which I did, and then we turned to automation, which I broke up into AI vs robotics, before noting gender differences.

Back to college for all: which narrative succeeds it?  I didn’t have a good, single answer right away.  We touched on a resurgence of vocational technology, then I sang the praises of liberal education.  We also talked about the changing value of different degrees – is the BA the new high school diploma? Is a master’s degree still a good idea?  I cited the move to reduce degree demands from certain fields, as well as the decline of the humanities, the crisis of computer science, and the growing importance of allied health.

After my part ended, Adams and Khrais pondered the role of higher education as a culture war battlefield.  Different populations might respond in varied ways – perhaps adults are more into the culture war issues, and maybe women (already the majority of students) are at greater risk of automation.

So what follows the end of college for all?

If the American consensus that K-12 should prepare every student for college breaks down, if we no longer have a rough agreement that the more post-secondary experience people get, the better, the next phase seems to be… mixed.  Perhaps we’re entering an intermediary phase before a new settlement becomes clear.

One component seems to be a resurgence in the skilled trades, requiring either apprenticeship, a short community college course of study, or on the job training.  Demand is still solid, at least until robotics become reliable and cost-effective in these fields, which doesn’t seem to be happening in at least the short term.  This needs preparation in K-12, and we’re already seeing the most prominent voices calling for a return to secondary school trades training.  There’s a retro dimension to this which might appeal to older folks. (I’ve experienced this in conversations with Boomers and my fellow Gen Xers, as people reminisce about shop class and home ec.)

A second piece of the puzzle would be businesses and the public sector expanding their education functions.  There is already an ecosystem of corporate campuses, online training, chief learning officers, and more; that could simply grow as employers seek to wean employees away from college.

A third might be a greater focus on skills across the board. Employers demand certain skills to a higher degree of clarity, perhaps including measurements for soft skills.  K-12 schools better articulate student skill achievement, possibly through microcredentials and/or expanded (portfolio) certification. Higher education expands its use of prior learning assessment for adult learners and transfer students, while also following or paralleling K-12 in more clearly identifying skills within the curriculum and through outcomes.

A fourth would be greater politicization of higher education.  If America pulls back from college for all, college for some arrives and the question of who gets to go to campus becomes a culture war battlefield.  Already a solid majority of students are women, so we might expect gender politics to intensify, with Republicans and men’s rights activists increasingly calling on male teenagers to skip college while young women view university as an even more appropriate stage of their lives.  Academics might buck 2025’s trends and more clearly proclaim the progressive aims they see postsecondary education fulfilling, joined by progressive politicians and cultural figures.  Popular culture might echo this, with movies/TV shows/songs/bestsellers depicting the academy as either a grim ideological factory turning students into fiery liberals or as a safe place for the flowering of justice and identity.

Connecting these elements makes me recall and imagine stories.  I can envision two teenagers, male and female, talking through their expectations of college. One sees it as mandatory “pink collar” preparation while the other dreads it for that reason.  The former was tracked into academic classes while the latter appreciated maker space time and field trips to work sites. Or we might follow a young man as he enters woodworking and succeeds in that field for years, feeling himself supported in his masculinity and also avoiding student debt, until he decides to return to school after health problems limit his professional abilities.  Perhaps one business sets up a campus and an apprenticeship system which it codes politically, such as claiming a focus on merit and not DEI, on manly virtues and traditional culture. In contrast another firm does the same but without any political coding, instead carefully anchoring everything in measured and certified skill development.

Over all of these options looms the specter of AI, and here the picture is more muddy.  Do “pink collar” jobs persist as alternatives to the experience of chatbots, or do we automate those functions?  Does post-secondary education become mandatory for jobs handling AIs, which I’ve been calling “AI wranglers”?  If automation depresses the labor force, do we come to see college as a gamble on scoring a rare, well paying job?

I’ll stop here.  My thanks to Marketplace for the kind interview on a vital topic.

*My audio quality isn’t the best because I fumbled the recording. Sigh.

Tuesday, June 17, 2025

The Higher Education Inquirer’s Dramatic Rise in Viewership

The Higher Education Inquirer has experienced a dramatic surge in readership in recent months, defying the odds in a media ecosystem dominated by corporate influence, algorithmic manipulation, and declining public trust. Without the benefit of advertising dollars, search engine optimization tactics, or institutional backing, the Inquirer has built an expanding audience on the strength of its investigative rigor, academic credibility, and fearless confrontation of power in higher education.

The Inquirer’s success lies in its refusal to chase headlines or appease stakeholders. Instead, it examines the underlying systems that have shaped the American higher education crisis—escalating student debt, the exploitation of adjunct faculty, administrative overreach, the encroachment of private equity, and the weakening of regulatory oversight. Its reporting draws directly from primary source documents: internal university records, SEC filings, FOIA requests, and government data from the U.S. Department of Education, Department of Veterans Affairs, and other public institutions. Readers trust the Higher Education Inquirer not simply because it is independent, but because it is evidence-based and relentlessly honest.

This journalistic integrity has attracted a diverse and influential group of contributors whose work amplifies the publication’s reach and credibility. Among them is David Halperin, an attorney, journalist, and watchdog who has long held the for-profit college industry accountable. Halperin’s sharp investigative writing has helped shape federal policy, inform regulatory action, and expose the inner workings of a powerful, often unregulated sector of higher education.

Other essential contributors include Henry Giroux, whose writing connects neoliberalism, authoritarianism, and education policy; Bryan Alexander, who offers foresight into technological and demographic changes shaping the future of academia; and Michael Hainline, who combines investigative rigor with grassroots activism. Together, these voices reflect a commitment to intellectual diversity grounded in a shared mission: to make sense of a higher education system in crisis, and to imagine alternatives.

HEI's timing could not be more significant. As student loan debt hits historic levels, public confidence in higher education erodes, and international students reassess their futures in the United States, people are seeking answers—and not from the usual pundits or PR firms. They’re turning to sources like the Inquirer that offer clarity, accountability, and a refusal to look away from injustice.

With more than 700 articles and videos in its growing archive, the Inquirer has become a vital resource for researchers, journalists, educators, and activists alike. And unlike many mainstream outlets, it remains open-access, free of paywalls and advertising clutter. It encourages participation from readers through anonymous tips, public commentary, and shared research, building a collaborative community that extends beyond the screen.

Last week, more than 30,000 readers visited the site—a significant number for an independent, ad-free platform. But more than numbers, this growth signals a shift in how people consume and value journalism. It shows that there is a real appetite for media that holds power accountable, that prioritizes substance over spectacle, and that dares to tell the truth even when it’s inconvenient.

The Higher Education Inquirer is not chasing influence—it’s earning it. Through fearless reporting, scholarly insight, and a commitment to justice, it has become a trusted voice in the fight to reclaim higher education as a public good. And with its core group of contributors continuing to inform and inspire, the Inquirer is poised to grow even further, serving as a beacon for those who believe that education—and journalism—should serve the people, not the powerful.

Thursday, June 5, 2025

Higher Education Inquirer Continues to Grow

The Higher Education Inquirer's viewership continues to grow. In the last week, we have had more than 30,000 views, and that's without SEO help.  Some of the content in HEI may be found elsewhere, but our in-depth historical and sociological analysis is rare for a blog or any other news source. HEI also relies on scholars and activists for our outstanding content.  Thank you, Henry GirouxGary Roth, and Bryan Alexander for allowing us to post your work.  And thanks to LACCD Whistleblower and Michael S. Hainline for your investigative exposes.  If you missed any of their articles, please click on their links. FYI: The Higher Education Inquirer archive also includes more than 700 articles and videos. Please check them out and let us know what you think. We want to hear from all sides of the College Meltdown.   



Wednesday, June 4, 2025

This Thursday on the Future Trends Forum: an international enrollment scenario (Bryan Alexander)

 

How might international student enrollment changes impact colleges and universities? This Thursday, on June 5th, from 2-3 pm ET, the Future Trends Forum is holding an interactive exercise to work through an evidence-based scenario wherein fall 2025 numbers crash. Everyone will participate by representing themselves in the roles they currently have or would like to take up, and in those positions explore the scenario.

We will develop responses to the situation in real time, which may help us think ahead for whatever form the crisis eventually takes. In this exercise, everyone gets to collaboratively explore how they might respond.   
 
As with our first election simulation, not to mention our solarpunkgenerative AIblack swan, and digital twin workshops, this one will involve participants as cocreators and investigators, exploring and determining what might come next.  Consider it a trial run for a potential future.

To RSVP ahead of time, or to jump straight in at 2 pm ET this Thursday, click here:
To find more information about the Future Trends Forum, including notes and recordings of all previous sessions, click here: http://forum.futureofeducation.us/.

(chart from Statista

Saturday, April 26, 2025

Trump Versus Academia, April 25, 2025 (Bryan Alexander)

Here's my latest Trump and academia vlog report. If you’re new to this series, these videos are where I summarize what the Trump administration has been doing to higher education, and how colleges and universities have responded. Here are the latest developments since the last video, as of today, April 25, 2025. 

Previous episodes here:
  • Trump and higher education: report fr... 1 The Federal level 

Executive orders: 
https://theintercept.com/2025/04/23/t...

National Science Foundation canceled grants: 
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/22/sc...

NSF’s director resigned: https://www.science.org/content/artic...

National Institutes of Health canceled The Women’s Health Initiative: https://www.science.org/content/artic...

Deportations and visa revocations of international students: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/g...

XKCD comic: https://xkcd.com/3081/

Democratic members of Congress visiting Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/04/2...

Legal challenges: 
https://apnews.com/article/internatio...
https://abc7chicago.com/post/us-stude...
https://katu.com/news/local/federal-j...
https://wgme.com/news/local/aclu-file...

In previous videos I’ve paused to read the names of academics seized or threatened with deportation by these offices, the names of people like Rasha Alawieh. Yunseo Chung. Alireza Doroudi. DoÄŸukan Günaydın. Mahmoud Khalil. Leqaa Kordia. Rumeysa Ozturk. Kseniia Petrova. Ranjani Srinivasan. Badar Khan Suri. Momodou Taal. 2 Academic reactions Trump on Harvard and one lawyer on Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTr...

Boycotting: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1L...

Research Council of Norway: https://www.theguardian.com/education...

I hope this video summary has been of use to you. Please share your thoughts, additions, and other reactions in the comment box below. If you don’t feel you can comment publicly, please reach out to me directly through the contact link at the end of today’s show notes. Given the pace of events, I’ll try to post these videos more frequently. This is a rough, dark time for those of us in higher education. It seems likely to get worse. I hope we can help each other out - and fight. Please take care, everyone. https://bryanalexander.org/contact-br...

Intro and outro sound: https://freesound.org/people/envirOma...

Monday, March 24, 2025

Joining two anti-Trump events this month (Bryan Alexander)

Over the past two weeks I carved out time to participate in two anti-Trump in-person events.  In this post I wanted to share some notes on the experiences, along with photos.

Last Thursday, after the regular Future Trends Forum session, my son Owain and I went to a local town hall led by our federal representative, Democrat Suhas Subramanyam. It took place in a community center and was very crowded, packed with people.  Before it began I didn’t hear much discussion, but did see some folks with anti-Trump and -Musk signs.  I found some seats for Owain and I and we each opened up a Google Doc on our phones to take notes.

Subramanyam took the stage and began with some brief remarks, starting with citing the dangers of DOGE. He mentioned working in the United States Digital Service during the Obama administration, the unit which DOGE took over as its institutional base. Subramanyam described why he voted against the continuing resolution to keep the government running and also spoke to the humanitarian and governmental problems of firing so many federal workers.

Subramanyam town hall 2025 March 20 rep on stage

Then it was over to questions. Folks lined up before two (somewhat functional) microphones. They told personal stories: of being lifelong federal workers, or having family members in those positions, and now facing their work being undone or their jobs ruined. Some spoke of depending on federal programs (SNAP, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security) and fearing cuts to them.  Several had military experience, which won applause from the room. Above all was this seething sense that Trump was a brutal and extraordinary threat, that Democrats weren’t taking it seriously, and the question: what can we do to fight back? Subramanyam listened hard to each one and answered thoughtfully, respectfully, often pointing to resources or actions we could take.

Subramanyam town hall 2025 March 20 questioner leaning forward
Ever the extrovert, I joined the microphone line right away. I was going to ask about threats to higher education, but happily someone else beat me to it. The representative offered a positive response, praising the work of researchers and teachers, urging us to fight for educators.  So, standing in line, I came up with another question.  When my turn came I began by thanking the representative for actually doing a real town hall meeting, not a scripted thing. I compared this meeting favorably to Vermont’s town hall tradition, and mentioned Bernie Sanders as a comparable example of someone who also knows how to do a community meeting well, and the room erupted in applause.

So I asked about climate change, how we – academics and everyone – can do climate work in this situation. I noted how the crisis was worsening, and how Trump was going to make things even more difficult. I was impressed to have Subramanyam’s full attention while I spoke.  I was equally impressed that he replied by supporting my remarks and work, then called for more climate action in the face of Trump’s actions.

Nobody got a photo of me that I know of, so here’s a shot of the representative (on right) paying close attention to one resident (standing on left).

(A sign of climate in culture today: people applauded my question. After I left the mic, several folks reached out to me – literally – to thank me for raising the topic.)

Returning to that question of what can be done to oppose Trump, Subramanyam and questioners listed these actions:

    • Legal action: filing lawsuits and supporting other people’s.  Getting Democratic politicians to do the same.
    • Congressional investigations into Trump: the Congressman pointed out that these can expose administrative malfeasance and build resistance.
    • Flat out resistance to Trump actions. Subramanyam argued that when people refuse to comply, the admin sometimes backs down, saying they made a mistake.
    • Doing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to get the feds to cough up documentation. They can slow-walk queries or outright refuse, of course, but FOIA can produce results.
    • Phone calls to people in red counties. (I think this was aimed at calling GOP officials, but am not sure.
    • People telling stories of Trump harms in whatever setting works. At one point Subramanyam said if the GOP wants to “flood the zone” with bogus content we should flood it right back with true, personal stories.

There were no calls for property damage or violence against people. Nor did anybody used the phrase “civil disobedience” or called for such actions.

The hour grew late and people started to drift out.  Owain and I had to get home and we filed out as well.

Two weeks ago I joined a different event, a rally for science in Washington, DC.  It took place at the Lincoln Memorial.  Several thousand people were there, all ages, races, genders. The mood was upbeat despite the chill and strong winds.

A podium rested on the steps and from there spoke quite the program of luminaries, including Bill Nye (I missed him), Francis Collins (just stepped down as NIH head), Atul Gawande (excellent medical writer, also surgeon), Phil Plait (astronomer, science communicator), and some other people I didn’t recognize. There was some singing, too.

Dr. Gawande

The overall theme was that Trump’s science cuts were awful.  Speakers hit on points under this header, such as that RFK was a dangerous idiot and that research reductions meant that human lives would be harmed and lost.  Diversity along race and gender lines was vital.  All kinds of science were mentioned, with medicine and public health leading the charge.

The consensus was on returning science funding to what it was under Biden, not in expanding it. There were no claims for adding scientific overviews to policy – it was a defensive, not offensive program.

There were plenty of signs.  Some had a fine satirical edge:

Off to one side – well, down along the reflecting pool – there was an Extinction Rebellion performance or group appearance, but I didn’t get to see if they staged anything besides looking awesome and grim.

Stand up for science rally DC 2025 March 7_XR group

During the time I was there no police appeared. There weren’t any counterprotesters.

Eventually I had to start the trip home.  As I walked along the reflecting pool towards the Metro station I heard speakers continuing and the roar of the appreciative crowd.


What can we take away from these two events?

There is a fierce opposition to Trump and it occurs across various sectors of society, from scientists to everyday folks (with some overlap!). Pro-Trump people didn’t appear, so I didn’t see arguments or worse between groups. I don’t know if this means that the president’s supporters are just confident or prefer to work online.

The Democratic party is not in a leadership role.  Outrage precedes and exceeds its actions so far.  The town hall liked Subramanyam, but it was clear they were bringing demands to him, and that he did not back the party leadership.

Both events had a strong positive feel, even though each was based on outrage. There was a sense of energy to be exerted, action to be had.

Many people visibly recorded each event, primarily through phones. I didn’t see anyone object to this.  (I tried to get people’s permission to photograph them, when they were clearly identifiable individuals.)

My feel is that climate interest is waning among people who oppose Trump.  They aren’t denying it and will support those who speak and act on it, but it’s no longer a leading concern.

Yet these were just two events, a very small sample size, and both in roughly the same geographic area, about 50 miles apart.  We can’t seriously generalize from this evidence, but hopefully it’s a useful snapshot and sample.

Personally, I found both to be rewarding and supportive. It was good to be with people who were similarly outraged and willing to be so in public.

American readers, are you seeing anything similar in your areas?  Non-Americans, what do you think of this glimpse?

[Editors note: This article first appeared at BryanAlexander.org.]

Wednesday, February 12, 2025

Short term Trump and long term trends (Bryan Alexander)

Here I look into the past month of Trump's actions and see how they might shape long-term trends. Specifically I touch on demographics, climate change, populism, technology, and a bit more. It's a weird way to celebrate my birthday, but hopefully a productive one.
 
 

Tuesday, February 11, 2025

Campus closures, mergers, cuts, and crises at the start of 2025 (Bryan Alexander)


How are colleges and universities responding to financial pressures?

Today, while Trump continues to flood the zone, I want to establish a sense of what the higher education baseline was before he cut loose.  As the new administration goes even more energetically after academia I’d like to share some data about our sector’s standing.

Last year I tracked cuts and crises afflicting dozens of campuses.  I posted roughly every months, noting program cuts, institutional mergers, and campus closures, as well as financial crises likely to cause same: March 1March 20March 28, April, MayJuneJulySeptember, November. Today I’ll continue that line for the reasons I’ve previously given: to document key stories in higher education; to witness human suffering; to point to possible directions for academia to take.  In addition, I want to help paint a picture of the world Trump is starting to attack.

Some caveats: I’m doing this in haste, between the political chaos and a stack of professional deadlines, which means the following will be more telegraphic than usual.  I may well have missed some stories, so please let me know in comments.

Closing colleges and universities

Philadelphia’s University of the Arts closed in 2024. Now different actors are angling for its physical remains.  Temple University purchased an iconic building, Quadro Bay bought another, and while more bids appear.

Mergers

Gannon University (Catholic, Pennsylvania) and Ursuline College (Catholic, Ohio) agreed to merge by this December.  The idea is to synthesize complementary academic offers and provide institutional stability, it seems.

Seattle University by martinvirtualtours

Seattle University (Jesuit, Washington state) and the Cornish College of the Arts (private, Washington) also agreed to merge.  As with the Lake Erie schools, one motivation is to expand curricular offerings:

Emily Parkhust, Cornish’s interim president, said the deal opens new doors for the tiny school’s nearly 500 students.

“This strategic combination will allow our students opportunities that we simply weren’t able to offer and provide at a small arts college,” she said. “Such as the opportunity to take business classes, computer courses, pursue master’s degree programs, engage in college sports — and even swim in a pool.”

Financial problems also played a role: “Cornish declared it was undergoing a financial emergency in 2020, and this year, Seattle University paused hiring as it faces a $7.5 million deficit.”

The Universidad Andres Bello (Universidad Andrés Bello; private, Chile) purchased Post University (for-profit, Connecticut).

Campuses cutting programs and jobs

In this series I’ve largely focused on the United States for the usual reasons: the sheer size and complexity of the sector; limited time. But in my other writing I’ve noted the epochal crisis hitting Canadian higher education, as the nation’s decision to cut international enrollment has struck institutional finances.   Tony Bates offers a good backgrounder.  Alex Usher’s team set up an excellent website tracking the resulting retrenchment.

British higher education is also suffering, partly for the reasons that nation’s economy is hurting: negative effects of Brexit, energy problems stemming from the Ukraine war, and political fecklessness. For one example I find the University of Hull (public research) which is combining 17 schools into 11 and ending its chemistry program, all for financial reasons. Cardiff University (Prifysgol Caerdydd; public research) cut 400 full time jobs, also for financial reasons:

Vice-Chancellor Professor Wendy Larner defended the decision to cut jobs, saying the university would have become “untenable” without drastic reforms.

The job role cuts are only a proposal, she said, but insisted the university needed to “take difficult decisions” due to the declining international student applications and increasing cost pressures.

Prof Larner said the university is not alone in its financial struggles, with most UK universities grappling with the “broken” funding system.

Back in the United States, Sonoma State University (public university, part of California State University system) announced a massive series of cuts.

“approximately 46 university faculty – both tenured and adjunct – will receive notice that their contracts will not be renewed for 2025-26. Additional lecturers will receive notice that no work will be available in fall 2025… Four management positions and 12 staff positions also will be eliminated.”

The university will shut down a group of departments: “Art History, Economics; Geology; Philosophy; Theater and Dance; and Women and Gender Studies.”

(These are the kind of cuts I’ve referred to as “queen sacrifices,” desperate moves to cut a school’s way to survival.  The term comes from chess, where a player can give up their most powerful piece, the queen. In my analogy tenured faculty represent that level of relative power.)

There will be some consolidation (“The college also plans to merge the Ethnic Studies departments (American Multicultural Studies, Chicano and Latino Studies, and Native American Studies) into one department with one major”) along with ending a raft of programs:

Administrative Services Credential in ELSE; Art History BA; Art Studio BFA; Dance BA; Earth and Environmental Sciences BA; Economics BA; Education Leadership MA; English MA; French BA; Geology BS; German Minor; Global Studies BA; History MA; Interdisciplinary Studies BA; Interdisciplinary Studies MA; Philosophy BA; Physical Science BA; Physics BA; Physics BS; Public Administration MPA; Spanish MA; Theatre Arts BA; Women and Gender Studies BA.

Additionally, and unusually, SSU is also ending student athletics: “The University will be removing NCAA Division II athletics entirely, involving some 11 teams in total.”

What lies behind these cuts?  My readers will not be surprised to learn that enrollment decline plays a role, but might be shocked by the decline’s size: “SSU has experienced a 38% decrease in enrollment.”

More cuts: St. Norbert College (Catholic, liberal arts, Wisconsin) is planning to cut faculty and its theology department. (I posted about an earlier round of cuts there  in 2024.)  Columbia College Chicago (private, arts) will terminate faculty and academic programs.  Portland State University (Oregon) ended contracts for a group of non-tenure-track faculty.

The University of New Orleans (public research) will cut $2.2 million of administration and staff.

The University of Connecticut (public, land grant) is working on closing roughly two dozen academic programs.  According to one account, they include:

master’s degrees in international studies, medieval studies, survey research and educational technology; graduate certificates in adult learning, literacy supports, digital media and design, dementia care, life story practice, addiction science and survey research; a sixth-year certificate in educational technology, and a doctoral degree in medieval studies.

It’s not clear if those terminations will lead to faculty and staff reductions.

Budget crises, programs cut, not laying off people yet

There are also stories of campuses facing financial pressures which haven’t resulted in cuts, mergers, or closures so far, but could lead to those. Saint Augustine’s University (historically black, South Carolina) is struggling to get approval for a campus leasing deal, while moving classes online “to take care of deferred maintenance issues.”  SAU has been facing controversies and financial challenges for nearly a generation.

The president of another HBCU, Tennessee State University, stated that they would run out of money by this spring.  That Higher Ed Dive article notes:

TSU’s financial troubles are steep and immediate. An FAQ page on the university’s website acknowledges that the financial condition has reached crisis levels stemming from missed enrollment targets and operating deficits. This fall, the university posted a projected deficit of $46 million by the end of the fiscal year.

The Middle States Commission on Higher Education agreed to hear an accreditation appeal from Keystone College (private, Pennsylvania), while that campus struggles:

Keystone college front page 2025 Feb

From the top of Keystone’s web page right now.

The board of William Jewell University (private liberal arts, Missouri) declared financial exigency.  This gives them emergency powers to act. As the official statement put it, the move “enables reallocation of resources, restructuring of academic programs and scholarships and significant reductions in force.”

Brown University (private research university, Rhode Island) is grappling with a $46 million deficit “that would grow to more than $90 million,” according to provost Francis J. Doyle III and Executive Vice President for Finance and Administration Sarah Latham.  No cuts are in the offing, although restraining growth is the order of the day. In addition, there’s a plan to increase one sort of program for revenue:

the university will work to “continue to grow master’s [program] revenue, ultimately doubling the number of residential master’s students and increasing online learners to 2,000 in five years.”

KQED reports that other California State University campuses are facing financial stresses, notably Cal State East Bay and San Francisco State University.  The entire CSU system and the University of California system each face massive cuts from the state’s governor.

Reflections

Nearly all of this is occurring before the second Trump administration began its work. Clearly parts of the American post-secondary ecosystem are suffering financially and in terms of enrollment.

It’s important to bear in mind that each school’s trajectory is distinct from the others in key ways. Each has its history, its conditions, its competing strategies, resources, micropolitics, and so on. Each one deserves more exploration than I have time for in this post.

At the same time I think we can make the case that broader national trends are also at work. Operating costs rise for a clutch of reasons (consumer inflation, American health care’s shambles, deferred maintenance being a popular practice, some high compensation practices, etc) and push hard on some budgets. Enrollment continues to be a challenge (I will return to this topic in a future post). The Trump administration does not seem likely to ameliorate those concerns.

Note, too, that many of the institutions I’ve touched on here are not first tier campuses. The existence of some may be news to some readers. As a result, they tend not to get much media attention nor to attract resources.   It is important, though, to point them out if we want to think beyond academia’s deep hierarchical structures.

Last note: this post has focused on statistics and bureaucracy, but these are all stories about real human beings.  The lives of students, faculty, staff and those in surrounding communities are all impacted.  Don’t lose sight of that fact or of these people.

(Seattle University photo by Michael & Sherry Martin; thanks to Karen B on Bluesky, Karen Bellnier otherwise, Mo Pelzel, Peter Shea, and Siva Vaidhyanathan for links; thanks to IHE for doing a solid job of covering these stories)

[Editor's note: This story first appeared at BryanAlexander.org on February 10, 2025] 

Sunday, January 12, 2025

Higher Education and the American Empire

The Higher Education Inquirer has had the good fortune to include scholars like Henry Giroux, Gary Roth, Wendy Lynne Lee, Bryan Alexander and Richard Wolff.  And their work certainly informs us about higher education. With those authors and others from the past and present (like Upton Sinclair, Craig Steven Wilder, Davarian Baldwin, and Sharon Stein), we can better understand puzzling issues that are rarely pieced together.  

In 2023, we suggested that a People's History of US Higher Education be written. And to expand its scope, the key word "Empire" is essential in establishing a critical (and honest) analysis. Otherwise, it's tedious work that only serves to indoctrinate rather than educate its citizens--work that smart and diligent students will eventually know is untrue.  

A volume on Higher Education and the American Empire needs to explain how elite universities have worked for US special interests and the interests of wealthy people across the globe--often at the expense of folks in university cities and places around the world--and at the expense of the planet and its ecosystems. With global climate change in our face (and denied), and with the US in competition with China, India, Russia, in our face (and denied), this story cannot be ignored.

This necessary work on Higher Education and the US Empire needs to include detailed timelines, and lots of charts, graphs, and statistical analyses--as well as stories. Outstanding books and articles have been written over the decades, but they have not been comprehensive. And in many cases, there is little to be said about how this information can be used for reform and resistance. 

Information is available for those who are interested enough to dig. 

Understanding the efforts of the American Empire (and the wealthy and powerful who control it) is more important than ever. And understanding how this information can be used to educate, agitate, and organize the People is even more essential.  We hear there are such projects in the pipeline and look forward to their publication. We hope they don't pull punches and that the books do not gather dust on shelves, as many important books do. 

Key links:

The Best Classroom is the Struggle (Joshua Sooter)

Higher Education Must Champion Democracy, Not Surrender to Fascism (Henry Giroux)