Let’s Pretend We Didn’t See It Coming...Again

In the shadow of soaring tuition, crumbling public trust in higher education, and rising economic precarity, there lies a deeper and more structural crisis that rarely garners full public scrutiny: the massive and interconnected towers of global debt, financial speculation, and inflated asset prices. These are not just accounting numbers or Wall Street abstractions. They define the future economic prospects of students, working families, and institutions alike.

The Student Debt Crisis: A Generation in Chains

The U.S. student loan burden exceeds $1.7 trillion, with over 43 million borrowers caught in a slow-motion crisis. What was once framed as an “investment in the future” now shackles millions with little promise of upward mobility. Borrowers who never completed their degrees, disproportionately women and people of color, face default and damaged credit for pursuing what society told them was the American Dream.

Structural reform remains elusive. Meanwhile, for-profit and online colleges—backed by venture capital and private equity—have turned education into a high-yield debt machine, targeting vulnerable populations with aggressive marketing and poor outcomes.

Corporate Debt: Risk Hidden in Plain Sight

Less visible but equally dangerous is the mountain of corporate debt, especially in the United States. Nonfinancial corporate liabilities stood at $13.7 trillion by the end of 2024, with nearly $11.2 trillion in bonds alone. Globally, corporate bond markets exceed $35 trillion, fueled by cheap borrowing in the 2010s.

Now, with interest rates higher and consumer demand uneven, the refinancing of this debt poses real risk. The so-called “zombie corporations”—firms that can barely cover interest payments—continue to proliferate. Many of these companies exist not to innovate or produce value, but to service debt and enrich shareholders and executives through buybacks and dividends. If the cost of borrowing rises further or economic conditions deteriorate, defaults could ripple across the economy.

Real Estate: The Price of Shelter Becomes a Crisis

Add to this the relentless surge in real estate prices, and the picture grows even more distorted. Over the last decade, home prices have outpaced income growth in most U.S. cities. The median home price now hovers near $420,000, with affordability reaching historic lows for younger buyers and renters.

Much like student loans, housing has been sold as a path to security—yet that security has become increasingly speculative. Real estate, once tied to the fundamentals of shelter and location, is now driven by institutional investors, foreign capital, and short-term rental platforms. As interest rates rise, many homeowners are “locked in” by low mortgage rates, further tightening supply and inflating prices.

Meanwhile, rent burdens grow heavier, particularly for younger Americans already saddled with student debt. The dream of homeownership is becoming a fantasy for a generation priced out by financialization, debt servitude, and institutional hoarding of housing stock.

Derivatives: A Colossal Casino with Limited Visibility

Above and beyond tangible debt instruments, the global financial system is entangled in a derivatives market with a notional value of more than $700 trillion. While the actual at-risk value (gross market value) is closer to $12 to $15 trillion, this market remains opaque, concentrated in the hands of a few major banks and financial institutions.

Derivatives tied to interest rates, currencies, and credit risk can provide stability—or amplify chaos. Despite regulatory reforms after the 2008 financial crisis, significant exposure still exists outside the purview of public accountability. The collapse of one key counterparty or the mispricing of a large position could trigger a systemic event, especially in an economy already weighed down by interconnected liabilities.

Cryptocurrency Speculation: Financial Innovation or Digital Tulipmania?

Add to this volatile mix the rise and decline (and rise again) of speculative cryptocurrencies, which at their 2021 peak reached a market capitalization of over $3 trillion, before crashing and partially rebounding. While blockchain technology may hold potential, the crypto economy—driven by memes, manipulation, and venture-funded hype—has largely functioned as an unregulated financial casino.

Retail investors, including young people and students, were encouraged by social media and celebrity endorsements to "HODL" assets like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and countless “altcoins.” Many suffered significant losses, with little to no recourse. Yet crypto continues to draw institutional interest and remains deeply entwined with tech capital and libertarian ideology—especially among Silicon Valley’s elite.

A System Built on Fragility

Taken together, these layers of financial risk—student debt, corporate borrowing, real estate bubbles, derivatives, and speculative crypto markets—form a fragile scaffold upon which the broader economy, including the higher education system, rests. When one pillar shakes, the others reverberate.

In this climate, universities are not just victims—they are participants. Many rely on debt financing, engage in financial derivatives, invest endowments in risky markets, and partner with speculative online education companies backed by venture capital. Meanwhile, they continue to promote a narrative of educational ROI (return on investment) that looks increasingly outdated and unethical in light of the risks young people are forced to assume.

What Comes Next?

As global financial risks mount and faith in higher education erodes, the U.S. faces a critical juncture. Will it address these underlying structural instabilities, or continue down a path of compounding debt and speculation?

Without systemic reform—in education, housing, finance, and economic policy—students and workers will remain trapped in an exploitative cycle, and the broader economy will lurch from one crisis to the next. It's time to stop pretending these risks are isolated. They are interwoven. And they are unsustainable.

---

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to investigate these intersections of finance, education, and inequality in the months ahead.

The Political Development of American Debt Relief (Debt Collective)

 As 2024 is coming to an end we wanted to flag a few upcoming calls happening for you to join.

The Political Development of American Debt Relief
8 p.m. ET Thursday, Dec 12

Governments at all levels have begun to experiment with various forms of debt relief, first during the covid-19 pandemic and now in a bid to mobilize Democratic voters. The recent Supreme Court decisions overturning Biden’s student loan forgiveness and rejecting the CDC’s eviction moratorium may suggest that these forays into debt relief were new and perhaps even impermissible, but this form of politics was a regular feature of American life from the Founding through the Great Depression. We will discuss what lessons we can draw from past periods of debtor mobilization, to help us understand when debtors are likely to succeed in shaping the law and understand how new demands for debt relief are impacting politics today.

Join Debt Collective and authors Emily Zackin and Chole N. Thurston for a conversation about their book, The Political Development of American Debt Relief.

REGISTER

New to the Debt Collective? Join our new member call: 8 p.m. ET Thursday, December 19 Learn about the areas the Debt Collective is currently organizing around, from medical debt, to housing and student debt and more. Find out how to plug-in. REGISTER

March Update on Student Debt (Debt Collective)

The federal government is a sh*t show right now. From ICE abductions of pro-Palestine college students to proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicaid, the Trump administration is wreaking havoc on all of our communities.

We want to take a moment and specifically talk about student debt and higher education — work that we’ve been doing for a while now. Here’s some of what we know, what we think, and what we should do:

In recent days, the Trump administration issued an executive order to dismantle the Department of Education. Legally, this cannot be done without Congress, but in practice, this means most of the staff was simply fired. We talked a little bit about what that means for student debtors in this Twitter thread. In short, this makes the student debt crisis much worse.

Shortly after that, Trump ordered the entire federal student debt portfolio — all $1.7 trillion — to be moved from the Department of Education to the Small Business Administration (SBA). The Small Business Administration is another agency within the federal government. That means our collective creditor would still be the federal government. But will this move actually happen? Will our federal student loans somehow end up privatized? There is a LOT up in the air right now, and the short answer is we don’t know exactly what will happen, but we as debtors should remain nimble so we can exercise our collective power when we need to. Moving our student debt from the Department of Education to the SBA would be 1) illegal 2) administratively and practically difficult 3) lead to possible errors with your account.

If you haven’t already, we still highly recommend going to studentaid.gov and finding your loan details and downloading and/or screenshotting your history.

The traditional infrastructure we have long suggested debtors utilize to solve problems with their student debt — the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the FSA ombudsman team, etc — have either been undermined or outright destroyed. This means there are fewer and fewer ways for us, student debtors, to get answers to problems with our student debt accounts. But we shouldn’t let Congress off the hook — we should make student loans Congress’ problem. They’re elected to serve us and it’s their job to attend to your needs.

Our friends at Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) have put together a helpful tool to open a case at your member of Congress’s office.

Lastly, we want to talk about what we mean when we say Free College. Student debt has ruined lives, and will continue to as long as it exists. We shouldn’t have to borrow to pay for college — in fact, we shouldn’t have to pay at all. It should be free. And that’s what we’re fighting for. But our vision for College For All doesn’t stop at tuition-free — it means ICE and cops off campus; it means paying workers, faculty and staff a living wage; it means standing up for free speech; it means ending domestic and gender based violence on campus; and it means universities that function as laboratories for democracy and learning, not as laboratories for landlords and imperialism.

On April 17th, Debt Collective is co-sponsoring the National Higher Education Day of Action to demand our vision of College For All and oppose the hell the Trump administration is causing right now. Find an event near you HERE to participate — or start an event on your own!

And THIS SATURDAY – April 5th –we’re taking to the streets with hundreds of thousands of people across the country to tell Trump and Musk “Hands Off Our Democracy!” They’re stripping America for parts, and it's up to us to put an end to their brazen power grab. This will be one of the largest mass mobilizations in recent history — and we need you in the streets with us. There are hundreds of actions planned, find one to join near you HERE.

Whatever happens in the future, we will be more likely to win if we gird ourselves with each other’s stories and experiences so we can fight together. This is why we built a debtors’ union — the only virtual factory floor for debtors. Debt acts as a discipline and keeps people from joining the struggle for things we care about — but we can increase our numbers and build power by canceling unjust debts. We all share the same creditor and we need to stay connected to one another. Forward this email to a friend or family member and tell them to join the union and our email list so we can stay connected.

In Solidarity,

Debt Collective

Breaking the Chains of Debt and Contingent Labor (Debt Collective and Higher Education Labor United)

Join us on July 31 as we host a deep dive discussion into two related crises facing higher ed workers and students alike: debt and labor contingency. 

Often presented as both institutionally inevitable and as individually shameful, spiraling debt and rising labor precarity are in fact insidious products of policy decisions, and together they are eroding the conditions that make genuine higher education possible. Yet these widely shared and intersecting chains of debt and labor contingency also have the potential to bring us together: as faculty, students, and workers, in new ways.

How can we grasp the systems of debt and labor precarity that bind today’s academy in a way that can allow us to unleash potential for liberatory education, in the classroom and beyond? And how can our unions and pedagogical strategies help create alliances between students, faculty, and other campus workers—not by shamefully avoiding talk of our “delinquent” debt or “adjunct” status, but by placing them front and center?”

Speakers: Joe Ramsey, Chair of Contingency Task Force, Higher Education Labor United and Faculty at UMASS, Boston; Jeri O’Bryan-Losee, United University Professions (SUNY)

Facilitated by Jason Wozniak, Debt Collective

Co-Sponsored by Higher Education Labor United

 

Related links:

 

The Power of Recognizing Higher Ed Faculty as Working-Class (Helena Worthen) 

 

I Went on Strike to Cancel My Student Debt and Won. Every Debtor Deserves the Same. (Ann Bowers)

The Student Loan Mess Updated: Debt as a Form of Social Control and Political Action  

 

DEBT STRIKE!

 

 

Older (Desperate) Folks Targeted for Online Robocolleges

In recent years, the profile of student loan borrowers in the United States has shifted dramatically. While student debt is often associated with young adults entering the workforce, a rapidly growing number of older Americans—those aged 50 and above—are carrying significant student loan balances, revealing a troubling new dimension of the nation’s student debt crisis.

As of mid-2025, approximately 7.8 million Americans aged 50 and older hold federal student loan debt, representing about 6% of adults in this age group. Many have borrowed not only for their own education but also to finance their children’s or grandchildren’s schooling. Others have returned to college later in life, seeking new skills or credentials to remain competitive. Yet, these borrowers often face unique challenges that have been exacerbated by the rise of so-called “robocolleges.”

Robocolleges are online institutions that aggressively market to older adults, promising flexible schedules and quick credentials that can lead to better job prospects. However, many of these institutions have come under scrutiny for their low graduation rates, high tuition costs, and poor outcomes for students. Unlike traditional colleges, robocolleges often rely heavily on automated systems and minimal personal support, leaving vulnerable older learners with little guidance about loan obligations or realistic career prospects.

These institutions have played a significant role in trapping many older Americans in unsustainable debt. Borrowers are lured by the promise of upward mobility but frequently end up with degrees that hold limited value in the labor market. The high cost of attendance combined with aggressive recruitment tactics has led many to accumulate tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt with few prospects for repayment.

Among older borrowers—6.2 million between 50 and 61 years old, and 2.8 million aged 62 or older—the average federal student loan balance for the 50–61 cohort is around $47,000, the highest among all age groups. Around 8% are delinquent on their loans, with median delinquent balances near $11,500. For those over 62, approximately 452,000 are in default and face the threat of Social Security benefit garnishment, though recent government actions have temporarily paused such garnishments.

The debt explosion among older Americans has been dramatic: over the past two decades, the number of borrowers aged 60 and above has increased sixfold, with total debt rising nearly twentyfold. Robocolleges, with their predatory recruitment and inadequate educational outcomes, are a central piece of this puzzle, helping to drive up borrowing without delivering commensurate value.

This growing crisis underscores the urgent need for policy reforms tailored to the realities faced by older borrowers. There must be greater transparency and accountability from robocolleges, stronger consumer protections, and expanded debt relief options that reflect the challenges of late-in-life borrowing. Additionally, educational counseling and financial literacy support designed specifically for older students are crucial.

The student debt crisis in America is no longer only about young adults trying to start their careers—it increasingly jeopardizes the financial security and dignity of older generations. As robocolleges continue to trap vulnerable older learners in cycles of debt, the urgency for reform becomes even clearer.

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to investigate and report on this evolving crisis, amplifying the voices of those caught in the crosshairs of an expanding student debt epidemic.

People's Rally for Student Debt Cancellation to be held outside Supreme Court, February 28, 2023

[Update: This event will be livestreamed at https://www.cancelmystudentdebt.org/peoples-rally-livestream ] 

Sign up for the People's Rally for Student Debt Cancellation to be held outside the US Supreme Court, Tuesday morning, February 28, 2023.  And please share this event with people in your network. 

The Supreme Court case involves the constitutionality of President Biden's order to cancel more than $400 billion in student loan debt, that according to the NY Fed would provide a disproportionate amount of relief to low and middle-income families. 

Supporters of the People's Rally include the Debt Collective, NAACP, National Urban League, American Federation of Teachers, National Education Association, SEIU, the National Consumer Law Center, Young Invincibles, and Move On. Senator Elizabeth Warren will be one of the speakers. 

While there is no substitute for People on the ground, folks can also attend online.  

Before the hearing, the People are invited to use the #CancelItSCOTUS! hashtag and flood Twitter with personal and shared stories of why the cancellation is so vital. Access the toolkit to join the Twitterstorm on 2/28 at 9-11am.

Currently, there are about 45 million Americans carrying student loan debt. Based on our interpretation of the 2022 Financial Student Aid Annual Report, about 40 percent of the federal student loan debt portfolio ($674 Billion of $1.7 Trillion) is unrecoverable.* 

Meanwhile, student loan debt collectors like Maximus receive hundreds of millions of dollars from the US government while sometimes using unethical and predatory business practices. 

Students who attended subprime schools or who had low financial value majors have been hardest hit. And the debt takes its toll on millions of citizens, their families, and their communities--and reduces their opportunities to live the American Dream. 

About 200,000 student debtors who were defrauded by subprime schools are also facing a legal battle in the 9th Circuit Court to have their debt forgiven. Hundreds of thousands more have filed Borrower Defense to Repayment claims and are awaiting for decisions that can take several years, due to  understaffing and an enormous backlog at the US Department of Education.

 

So far, ED has only approved Borrower Defense to Repayment claims from a handful of closed schools, and it appears that victims of fraud from other subprime schools, like the University of Phoenix, have received blanket denials.  

Pushing back against the debtors, Republican lawmakers are calling for mandatory loan repayments to restart.  

Stay tuned to this post for more information.  #strikedebt 

 *We have asked the US Department of Education press team for a comment, but they have not responded, which is often the case.

Related link: I Went on Strike to Cancel My Student Debt and Won. Every Debtor Deserves the Same. (Ann Bowers*) 

Related link: Assessing the Relative Progressivity of the Biden Administration’s Federal Student Loan Forgiveness Proposal (NY Fed)

Related link:  Federal Student Aid FY 2022 Annual Report 

Related link: Sweet v Cardona (Borrower Defense to Repayment) 

Related link: Maximus, Student Loan Debt, and the Poverty Industrial Complex 

Related link: Borrower Defense to Repayment Loan Forgiveness Data

I Went on Strike to Cancel My Student Debt and Won. Every Debtor Deserves the Same. (Ann Bowers*)

Image of Ann Bowers, courtesy of the Debt Collective

[Note:  This article originally appeared in In These Times on June 2, 2022.  The Higher Education Inquirer is now working with Ann Bowers and the Debt Collective to restore GI Bill benefits to veterans preyed upon by for-profit colleges.]

This week, former students of Corinthian Colleges — a predatory for-profit school that once boasted more than 100 campuses across the country — received news that their student loans will be canceled. In an announcement, a Department of Education (DOE) press release called the move ​“the largest single loan discharge the Department has made in history.” As a former student of Everest College, which is a branch of Corinthian, I am overjoyed that everyone who attended the scam school will finally be made whole.

The action, announced on June 2, will impact 560,000 former Corinthian students and $5.8 Billion in total student debt will be cancelled. This amounts to a stunning victory for debtors who took collective action to win relief.

But I want to set the record straight. This victory is not the result of the Biden administration’s good will. It is the outcome of a fierce organizing campaign by debtors that has been going on for almost eight years. I should know. I was part of a group of former students that launched a 7-year long student debt strike to win loan cancellation from the federal government.

Now, as President Biden considers cancelling student loan debt more broadly, the outcome for former Corinthian students should send a clear message that the only way to resolve the issue of pernicious student loan debt is to cancel it for everybody and to do so automatically, without making borrowers individually apply.

My involvement started back in 2014 when I read an article that revealed my school was suspected of lying to and defrauding borrowers, many of whom were from low-income families. I was outraged to discover that Corinthian had been under investigation by the U.S. Senate since at least 2010 for breaking the law — all while continuing to receive billions of dollars per year in government funding. Investigators found that Corinthian lied to students about job placement rates, enrolled people who were not prepared for college-level work and offered a sub-par education. The college also provided falsified placement information to accrediting agencies in order to keep federal money flowing. Some of the evidence against Corinthian was compiled by then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who sued the school in 2013 for false advertising.

Furious and determined to fight back, I turned to social media and found that hundreds of former students of my school were gathering online to address the dilemma that we had found ourselves in: huge debts and worthless degrees.

Organizers from the Debt Collective, a union for debtors, had also heard about the plight of Corinthian borrowers and found our group on Facebook. They proposed that everyone who had attended the school join together to pressure the government to cancel our debts. There were few other choices: student debts cannot be erased in bankruptcy except in a few extreme circumstances. Turning our individual burdens into a collective demand was our only option.

In the winter of 2015, a group of former students met in person to plan the campaign. We were all in a similar situation. None of us had been able to find the high-paying jobs that Corinthian had promised, and none of us could afford to pay back the astronomical sums that we owed. We turned our inability to repay into a rallying cry and launched a student debt strike — the first in U.S. history — to demand the cancellation of our loans. We called ourselves the Corinthian Fifteen.

The law was on our side. We relied on an obscure legal mechanism called Borrower Defense to Repayment that required the government to cancel the debts of defrauded students. Since the DOE did not even have an application available to those who wanted to apply for relief, we worked with lawyers to design a form and then made it available on the Debt Collective’s website. By the spring of 2015, applications from former for-profit college students rolled in by the thousands.

Public opinion was also on our side. Our campaign went viral. Dozens of news outlets covered the story of the scammed borrowers who were taking on the Obama administration in March 2015. Strikers met in Washington, D.C. with officials from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Department of Education and the Treasury Department. We shared our experiences of being lied to and defrauded by Corinthian and delivered hundreds of applications for loan relief into the hands of Ted Mitchell, the Undersecretary of Education under President Obama.

Our campaign won the support of major media organizations like the New York Times editorial board and politicians like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Hillary Clinton. As more former for-profit college students realized they had been scammed, our numbers grew. We were joined by students who had attended other predatory schools such as ITT Technical Institutes. Our group of 15 strikers soon grew to 100. Thanks to the Debt Collective, we met with lawyers who helped us understand the consequences of not paying our debts. We knew that defaulted debtors could face wage garnishment and tax offsets. Older borrowers might have their social security benefits garnished. But we were ready for those consequences. Most of us could not afford to pay anyway and were already in default, so the strike was a way to politicize our inability to pay. We stood together for everyone in our situation across the country.

Unfortunately, the Department of Education dragged its feet. Officials claimed they cared about us and wanted to help, but rather than just canceling debts that were shattering lives and ruining futures, they set up a series of administrative processes and claimed they needed to study the issue. Little by little, a few former students who filled out the correct forms and checked the right boxes got their loans relieved. But hundreds of thousands of others waited in anguish.

I was one of the lucky ones. Finally, in 2017, I received an email from the DOE that said my loans were being canceled. My joy was tempered by the fact that thousands of others were still in debt. The news got even worse when President Donald Trump came into office. His Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, halted the relief process that had begun slowly under Obama.

But the fight is far from over, and the stakes are higher than ever.

Back in 2010, when I enrolled at Corinthian, I didn’t know there was such a thing as for-profit education. I assumed that if the government was funding a college, it must be offering a quality education. My experience organizing a debt strike and talking to borrowers who attended colleges of all kinds has taught me that the problem is larger than scam schools. The for-profit college industry is part of a larger system of higher education that often promises the world while failing to deliver for students like me who don’t come from wealthy backgrounds.

Just like former Corinthian students won by turning our individual struggles into a collective demand, I believe we can win even more if student debtors from colleges of all kinds fight back together. We can demand a more fair and just higher education system and an end to the for-profit schools that prey on low-income students.

Borrower Defense Claims Surpass 750,000. Consumers Empowered. Subprime Colleges and Programs Threatened.

The Higher Education Inquirer has posted a number of articles about student loan debt. In 2023, the student loan mess has reached epic proportions. Not only has the US Federal Student Aid debt portfolio reached more than $1.6 Trillion, we learned that $674 Billion was estimated to be unrecoverable. 

In California, the US District Court in Sweet v Cardona agreed to a $6 Billion settlement between student debtors and the US Department of Education. 

In Texas, a group representing for-profit colleges has sued the US Department of Education for their actions in settling Borrower Defense claims. 

And across the US, about 40 million student debtors and their families are awaiting a decision from the US Supreme Court—a decision that will not likely favor the debtors.

Borrower Defense, Subprime Colleges, Subprime Programs

Borrower Defense to Repayment claims are claims by student loan debtors that their school misled them or engaged in other misconduct in violation of certain state laws. The Department of Education may discharge all or some of the student loan debt and hold the school and its owners responsible. 

As of January 2023, there are more than three quarters of a million Borrower Defense claims against schools. And each month, about 16,000 new claims are added.  Evidence from the Sweet v Cardona case revealed that only about 35 workers were responsible for processing hundreds of thousands of claims. Those claims have been disproportionately made against a number of for-profit colleges and formerly for-profit colleges, what we call “subprime colleges.”   

Some of these subprime schools have closed (Everest College, ITT Tech, and Westwood College for example), some remain in business as for-profit colleges (like University of Phoenix and Colorado Tech), some have changed names and become covert for-profit colleges or robocolleges (like Purdue University Global, University of Arizona Global Campus, and the Art Institutes), and some schools act act like subprime colleges regardless of tax status. This includes low-return on investment programs at several US robocolleges and overly expensive graduate programs offered by 2U, an online program manager for elite colleges.  

In the Sweet v Cardona case, more than 200,000 student borrowers are expecting to receive full debt relief after years of struggling.  A Facebook group Borrower Defense-Sweet vs. Cardona currently has more than 14,000 members. 

Named plaintiffs Theresa Sweet (L) and Alicia Davis (R) outside the federal district court in San Francisco on November 6, 2022, three days before the final approval hearing in Sweet v Cardona (Image credit: Ashley Pizzuti)

Transparency and Accountability 

The US Department of Education keeps an accounting of Borrower Defense claims, but only publishes the aggregate numbers, not institutional numbers. Those institutional numbers do make a difference in promoting transparency and accountability for the largest bad actors. So why does the Department of Education not publish those institutional numbers?

 
The National Student Legal Defense Network submitted a FOIA (22-01683F) to the US Department of Education (ED) in January 2022 asking just for that information. And what HEI has discovered is that just a small number of schools garnered the lion's share of the Borrower Defense claims. To get a digital copy of that information, please email us for a free download.

Related links:

Borrower Defense-Sweet vs Cardona (Facebook private group)  

Project on Predatory Student Lending

Sweet v. Cardona Victory (Matter of Life and Debt podcast)

I Went on Strike to Cancel My Student Debt and Won. Every Debtor Deserves the Same. (Ann Bowers)

An Email of Concern to the People of Arkansas about the University of Phoenix (Tarah Gramza)

People's Rally for Student Debt Cancellation to be held outside Supreme Court, February 28, 2023

 
A Letter to the US Department of Education and Student Loan Servicers on Behalf of Student X (Heidi Weber)  

The Growth of "RoboColleges" and "Robostudents"

Subprime College Crash Continues Under the Radar

2U Virus Expands College Meltdown to Elite Universities

Maximus, Student Loan Debt, and the Poverty Industrial Complex

 
More Transparency About the Student Debt Portfolio Is Needed: Student Debt By Institution  

Higher Education, Technology, and A Growing Social Anxiety

The Era We Are In

We are living in a neoliberal/libertarian era filled with technological change, emotional and behavioral change, and social change. An era resulting in alienation (disconnection/isolation) for the working class and anomie (lawlessness) among elites and those who serve them. We are simultaneously moving forward with technology and backward with human values and principles. Elites are reestablishing a more brutal world, hearkening back to previous centuries--a world the Higher Education Inquirer has been observing and documenting since 2016. No wonder folks of the working class and middle class are anxious. 

Manufactured College Mania

For years, authorities such as the New York Federal Reserve expressed the notion (or perhaps myth) that higher education was an imperative for young folks. They said that the wealth premium for college graduates was a million dollars over the course of a lifetime--ignoring the fact that a large percentage of people who started college never graduated--and that tens of millions of consumers and their families were drowning in student loan debt. 

2U, Guild Education, and a number of online robocolleges reflected the neoliberal promise of higher education and online technology to improve social mobility.  The mainstream media were largely complicit with these higher ed schemes. 

2U brought advanced degrees and certificates to the masses, using brand names such as Harvard, MIT, Yale, USC, University of North Carolina, and the University of Texas to promote the expensive credentials that did not work for many consumers. 

Guild Education brought educational opportunities to folks at Walmart, Target, Macy's and other Fortune 500 companies who would be replacing their workers with robotics, AI, and other technologies. But the educational opportunities were for credentials from subprime online schools like Purdue University Global. Few workers took the bait. 

As 2U files for bankruptcy, it leaves a number of debt holders holding the bag, including more than $500M to Wilmington Trust, and $30M to other vendors and clients, including Guild Education, and a number of elite universities. Guild Education is still alive, but like 2U, has had to fire a quarter of its workers, even downsizing its name to Guild, as investor money dries up. It continues to spend money on its image, as a Team USA sponsor.    

The online robocolleges (including Liberty University, Grand Canyon University, University of Phoenix, Purdue University Global, and University of Arizona Global)  brought adult education and hope to the masses, especially those who were underemployed. In many cases, it was false hope, as they also brought insurmountable student debt to American consumers. Billions and billions in debt that cannot be repaid, now considered toxic assets to the US government. 

Along the way there have been important detractors in popular culture, especially on the right. Conservative radio celebrity Dave Ramsey, railed against irresponsible folks carrying lots of debt, including student loan debt. He was not wrong, but he did not implicate those who preyed on student consumers. On the left, the Debt Collective also railed against student loan debt, long before the right, but they were often ignored or marginalized. 

Adapting to a Brutal System

The system  works for elites and some of those who serve them, but not for others, even some of the middle class. Good jobs once at the end of the education pipeline have been replaced by 12-hour shifts, 60 hour work weeks, bullsh*t jobs, and gig work. 

Working-class Americans are living shorter lives, lives in some cases made worse not so much by lack of education, but by the destruction of union jobs, and by social media, and other intended and unintended consequences of technology and neoliberalism. Millions of folks, working class and some middle class, who have invested in higher education and have overwhelming debt and fading job prospects, feel like they have been lied to.

We also have lives made more sedentary and solitary by technology. Lives made more hectic and less tolerable. Inequality making lives too easy for those with privilege and lives too difficult for the working class to manage. Lives managed by having fewer relationships and fewer children. Many smartly choosing not to bring children into this new world. All of this manufactured by technology and human greed.  

The College Dream is Over...for the Working Class

There are two competing messages about higher education: the first that college brings opportunity and wealth and the second, that higher education may bring debt and misery. The truth is, these different messages are meant for two groups: pushing brand name schools and student loans for the most ambitious middle class/working class and a lesser form of education for the struggling working class. 

In 2020, Gary Roth said that the college dream was over. Yet the socially manufactured college mania continues, flooding the internet with ads for college and college loans, as social realities point to a future with fewer good and meaningful jobs even for those with degrees. Higher education will continue to work for some, but should every consumer, especially among the struggling working class, believe the message is for them? 

Related links:

More than half of college grads are stuck in jobs that don't require degrees (msn.com)

AI-ROBOT CAPITALISTS WILL DESTROY THE HUMAN ECONOMY (Randall Collins)

Edtech Meltdown 

Guild Education: Enablers of Anti-Union Corporations and Subprime College Programs

2U Declares Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. Will Anyone Else Name All The Elite Universities That Were Complicit?

College Mania!: An Open Letter to the NY Fed (2019)

"Let's all pretend we couldn't see it coming": The US Working-Class Depression (2020)

The College Dream is Over (Gary Roth, 2020)

GOP Attorneys General Shop for Judges in Effort to Crush Student Loan Debtors (David Halperin, Republic Report)

[Editor's note: This article originally appeared on Republic Report.] 

When a federal trial judge in St. Louis issued an order last week blocking the latest Biden-Harris administration student loan relief plan, the Republican state attorneys general who filed the case gleefully celebrated yet another court victory over Americans struggling to pay their college debts. But those GOP AGs apparently don’t want to discuss the route by which the case arrived in Missouri: They seemingly tried to hand-pick a federal judge in coastal Georgia to hear their complaint, only to have that judge, a close associate of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, mysteriously recuse from the matter, and then have a second Georgia federal judge, after granting temporary relief, ship the case to St. Louis.

Let’s break all that down.

On October 3, U.S. District Judge Matthew T. Schelp of the Eastern District of Missouri issued a preliminary injunction barring the Department of Education from implementing proposed regulations to provide student debt relief to several major categories of borrowers, including those who owe more than they first borrowed because of mounting interest, those who have made payments for more than 20 years, and those whose schools failed to offer them “sufficient financial value.” The Biden administration estimated the new rules would completely cancel student debt for 4 million people and erase accrued interest for 23 million.

Judge Schelp held that the GOP AGs were likely to succeed on their claim that the Department of Education lacked the legal authority to cancel all this debt without authorization from Congress.

The ruling was another notable case of extreme judicial activism by supposedly “conservative” judges; Schelp, unusually, struck down the proposed rule before the Department of Education had even finalized it.

Persis Yu, Deputy Executive Director and Managing Counsel at the non-profit Student Borrower Protection Center, said in a statement that Judge Schelp’s ruling was marked by “a dearth of legal reasoning.”

But Judge Schelp, a Donald Trump appointee, is not the first federal judge to handle the latest case in the month since it was filed. He is, remarkably, the fifth.

Led by Missouri attorney general Andrew Bailey, and that state’s solicitor general, Josh Divine, the states of Missouri, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, North Dakota, and Ohio filed the lawsuit, against the education department, on September 3 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, and specifically in that court’s division based in Brunswick, Georgia, on the state’s east coast, close to the Florida state line.

The Brunswick Division has exactly one U.S. District Judge: Lisa Godbey Wood, appointed by George W. Bush.

The Georgia attorney general’s office tends to file its significant federal lawsuits in the U.S. District Court in Atlanta. So why was this action to nullify major student debt relief filed in Brunswick, when the Georgia AG doesn’t even have staff there and had to rely on a private local lawyer to assist? There was always the risk that a case filed in Atlanta would be assigned to a judge skeptical of the Republican AGs’ effort to void debt relief, including whether the AGs would have legal standing to contest the action. Perhaps the GOP AGs thought Judge Wood was a better bet to do what they wanted.

But the same day that the case was filed, Judge Wood issued a two-sentence order recusing herself and transferring the case to R. Stan Baker, Chief Judge of the Southern District of Georgia. Wood did not state the reason she was recusing.

The next day, Chief Judge Baker issued an order reassigning the case to another judge on the court, J. Randall Hall, also a George W. Bush appointee.

One observer posited to me that the GOP AGs might have already known that Judge Wood had a reason for recusal when they filed the case in front of her; under this theory, the AGs bet that, after Judge Wood recused, Chief Judge Baker would hand-assign the case to another “conservative” judge who would be a good bet to strike down the new Biden student debt rules.

That theory might sound far-fetched. But the day after receiving the case, Judge Hall granted the GOP AGs’ motion for a temporary restraining order, thus blocking the regulations. On September 19, after yet another member of the court, Magistrate Judge Christopher L. Ray, had handled several preliminary motions in the case, Hall extended the restraining order an additional two weeks while he considered the AGs’ motion for a longer preliminary injunction.

But on October 2, Judge Hall threw a curveball: He granted the Department of Education’s motion to dismiss the state of Georgia from the case, holding, appropriately, that Georgia had not demonstrated an interest sufficiently concrete to provide standing to contest the debt regulations. In short, Georgia did not have a significant interest in ensuring that its own citizens, and those of other states, would remain mired in student loan debt.

With Georgia out of the litigation, Judge Hall further ruled that a federal court in Georgia was not the proper venue for the case. He transferred the lawsuit to Missouri, holding that that state had “clear standing” based on the potential harm the rule posed to MOHELA, Missouri’s student loan agency.

The transfer set the stage for the Missouri judge’s decision, the very next day after the case was sent over from Georgia, that blocked the Biden rule pending final resolution of the lawsuit.

So the GOP AGs got the outcome they wanted, at least for now. But why didn’t they go to Missouri, where the argument for standing to bring the case was much stronger, in the first place?

“It appears that the Missouri AG has achieved through dumb luck what they were hoping to get through strategic maneuvering,” Persis Yu told me. “Getting transferred to the Eastern District of Missouri was not necessarily going to be in their favor, which is why I assume they avoided it in the first place. While no liberal oasis, there are a number of Democratic-appointed judges, and so the outcome they got was far from guaranteed.”

But, Yu says, through apparently random assignment the GOP AGs ended up with Schelp, “one of the most ideologically driven judges, who is seemingly happy to eviscerate precedent and the [federal Administrative Procedure Act] to give the Missouri AG what he is looking for.”

Spokespersons for the AGs wouldn’t tell me why they didn’t file in Missouri in the first place, and declined to opine on the reason for Judge Wood’s recusal.

Kara Murray, communications director for Georgia attorney general Chris Carr, said their office was “unable to speak” to my questions, and simply noted that the Missouri District Court “immediately granted a preliminary injunction.”

Madeline Sieren, communications director for Missouri Attorney General Bailey, told me her office “cannot answer these questions at this time, as litigation is ongoing.” She added, “Happy to answer questions that don’t reveal litigation strategy or speculate on judges’ recusal decisions.”

Sieren referred me to Attorney General Bailey’s X (formerly Twitter) feed, where he crowed about the court victory. “A huge -and quick – win for every American who won’t have to pay for someone else’s Ivy League debt,” Bailey tweeted, ignoring that many of those who would benefit from the Biden debt relief plan are struggling middle- and low-income Americans who were scammed by high-priced for-profit colleges. And also ignoring that getting all these people out of heavy debt would help them to have families, buy homes, go back to school, and engage in other activity that would boost the U.S. economy.

Attorney General Bailey struck out with the U.S. Supreme Court in August when, facing a primary election challenge from a lawyer who has represented Donald Trump, he made an absurd effort to press the high court to halt Trump’s criminal sentencing in New York until after the November election. (Bailey won his primary, and the New York judge, Juan Merchan, eventually postponed the sentence on his own.)

The case in which Judge Schelp issued his injunction is the third lawsuit led by Attorney General Bailey to halt the Biden administration’s efforts to grant debt relied to student loan borrowers. Over the summer, the St. Louis-based 8th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked an earlier Biden debt relief plan called SAVE, as well as blocking parts of other federal Income-Driven Repayment plans on which millions of borrowers have long relied to reduce their debt burden.

Bailey originated that case, Missouri v. Biden, by suing in the St. Louis federal court, but this time he decided to try Brunswick, Georgia, and its only judge.

Shopping for judges is not a new tactic for Republican attorneys general in their quest to nullify Biden administration regulations (or for the for-profit college industry in its efforts to do the same). But proposed federal legislation to curb judge-shopping has gone nowhere in the bitterly divided U.S. Congress.

(Democratic attorneys general and progressive groups often appeared to try judge shopping during the Trump administration, especially by filing in California, headquarters of the relatively liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but California federal district court rules assign cases at random within a district, preventing the automatic assignment to a local federal judge by filing in a specific courthouse.)

Missouri’s solicitor general, Josh Divine, who has been litigating the case for Bailey’s office, is a former aide to U.S. senator Josh Hawley (R-MO). He also was once a law clerk for Judge William Pryor of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, the appellate region that includes Georgia, and perhaps gained some familiarity with Judge Wood and Judge Baker in that capacity. After clerking for Pryor, Divine clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and Divine trumpets his fandom of Thomas aggressively, calling Thomas “the GOAT Supreme Court Justice.”

Meanwhile, Justice Thomas appears to be a fan of Brunswick’s Judge Wood. When Wood was sworn in for her own term as Chief Judge of the Southern District of Georgia in 2010, Justice Thomas, a south Georgia native, showed up to effusively praise her.

When you have MAGA-inspired attorneys general and MAGA-connected judges and justices endless gaming the system and ignoring long-standing legal precedents, fairness and justice are crushed, as are, in this instance, the hopes and dreams of generations of hard-working Americans who are buried under insurmountable student loan debt.

Trump 2024 and the Student Loan Portfolio

The US Department of Education (ED) handles the student loans of about 40 million US citizens, holding on to about $1.6 Trillion in debt--which is considered an asset to the US government.  And ED-FSA (Federal Student Aid) hires tens of thousands of workers, mostly contractors, to service the debt. But that could change in a few years. If Donald Trump is elected President.  

Under President Trump, debtors might expect that their loans to be transferred over to large corporations--at some point--with the sale being used to reduce the federal deficit, and to cut labor at ED. This would aid in the effort to eliminate the US Department of Education, as Trump has promised on the campaign trail.

Selling off the student loan debt portfolio may or may not require approval from anyone outside of the President. At least one study, by McKinsey & Company, has already been conducted regarding this possibility. 

In 2019, the Trump administration hired McKinsey to analyze the $1.5 trillion federal student loan portfolio. This analysis was part of a broader effort to explore options for managing the portfolio, including potentially selling off some of the debt. Results were never published. The analysis was conducted alongside a study by FI Consulting, which focused on the economic value of the portfolio, noting that the valuation could vary depending on future default rates, prepayment rates, and economic conditions.

The new owners of the sold off debt would most likely be big banks and other large companies, both domestic and foreign, that find value in the debt. There would be political and social resistance.  And many questions would need to be answered, in detail.

Would large banks or other large corporations be better stewards of the debt?

Would the bidding be transparent?  

Would consumers be able to challenge loan repayments or ask for forgiveness?  

What would happen to the contracts of the existing debt servicers?  

Will this expand the existing Student Loan Asset-Backed Securities market? 

Related link:

The Student Loan Mess Updated: Debt as a Form of Social Control and Political Action

From Promise to Predicament: The Fed’s View of Higher Education Fifteen years of data, warnings, and contradictions about America’s student debt crisis.

Over the past fifteen years, the Federal Reserve System has quietly amassed one of the most extensive and consistent bodies of research on student loan debt in the United States. Across its twelve regional banks and the Board of Governors in Washington, the Fed has produced a series of studies that track not just the growth of borrowing, but its unequal burden across race, class, institution type, and geography. The findings confirm what many borrowers already know: the promise of higher education increasingly comes with financial risk, social inequality, and personal hardship.

The Fed's research consistently shows that student loan debt limits economic mobility. It lowers homeownership rates, delays marriage and family formation, and contributes to intergenerational poverty—especially among first-generation college students, borrowers of color, and those who attended for-profit or low-value institutions. While college graduates generally earn more over a lifetime than non-graduates, the costs of attendance—and the debt needed to finance it—often erode that advantage.

The New York Fed was among the first to quantify the scale of the crisis. A 2014 staff report revealed the steep growth in borrowing and the rising rates of delinquency. Follow-up research found that students who failed to complete degrees were the most likely to default. Even among those who did graduate, the risks varied widely depending on the school attended. For-profit college students, in particular, had disproportionately poor outcomes—higher debt levels, higher unemployment, and lower earnings.

In New England, the Boston Fed found that despite the region’s high tuition costs, default rates were relatively low. Researchers attributed this to a strong labor market and high levels of family support. But the same studies also showed that borrowers from disadvantaged backgrounds were still more likely to struggle with repayment, even in affluent states.

More recent work from the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (SHED) adds further evidence that the student loan crisis is uneven. Black and Latino borrowers were more likely to attend institutions with poor outcomes and were more likely to fall behind on payments after the federal pause ended in 2023. Older Americans, including many Parent PLUS borrowers and returning students, also experienced sharp declines in credit scores when payments resumed.

Other Fed branches have asked deeper structural questions. The Richmond Fed in 2022 examined whether increases in federal loan limits contributed to tuition inflation. Their findings were nuanced: while tuition sometimes rose in tandem with expanded loan access, the relationship was inconsistent and depended heavily on institutional behavior. Meanwhile, the Chicago Fed found that families who lost wealth during the Great Recession relied more heavily on student loans, underscoring that borrowing is often a symptom of broader economic vulnerability, not just tuition hikes.

There are tensions among these findings. Some studies emphasize the long-term value of a college degree, arguing that despite the debt, graduates still fare better than non-graduates. Others focus on the risks—especially for those who never finish or who attend predatory institutions. Some research supports targeted loan forgiveness for the most vulnerable; others point to the need for broader systemic reforms to financing, accountability, and access.

What is clear across all these studies is that the federal student loan system, once designed to expand opportunity, now plays a major role in reproducing inequality. Without deeper changes to how higher education is funded and delivered, student loan debt will continue to act as a drag on economic growth and a burden on the middle and working classes.

---

Chart: Median Student Loan Balances by Degree Status and Institution Type
(Based on data from the Federal Reserve Board’s SHED, 2024)

Degree Completed     | Institution Type     | Median Balance
---------------------|----------------------|-----------------
No Degree            | For-Profit College   | $15,700
Associate’s Degree   | Community College    | $12,400
Bachelor’s Degree    | Public University    | $20,200
Bachelor’s Degree    | Private Nonprofit    | $26,000
Graduate Degree      | Public University    | $35,000
Graduate Degree      | Private Nonprofit    | $49,000

This chart highlights how both degree completion and institution type shape borrowing outcomes. Borrowers with no degree, particularly those who attended for-profit colleges, face high risk with lower earning potential. In contrast, graduate students from private institutions carry the highest debt loads, but typically with greater long-term income.

---

Sources:

• Federal Reserve Board, Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (2014–2024)

• New York Federal Reserve, Student Loan Borrowing and Repayment Behavior (2014, 2019)

• Boston Federal Reserve, Student Loan Debt and Economic Outcomes in New England (2014, 2016)

• Richmond Federal Reserve, Do Federal Student Loans Drive Tuition? (2022)

• Chicago Federal Reserve, The Shadow of the Great Recession and Student Loan Burden (2024)

• St. Louis Federal Reserve, Students Are Borrowing Too Much—or Too Little (2019)

Liberty University Targeting Vets for Robocollege Master's Degrees

Liberty University, one of the largest Christian universities in the world, has built an educational empire by promoting conservative values and offering flexible online degree programs to hundreds of thousands of students. But behind the pious branding and patriotic marketing lies a troubling pattern: Liberty University Online has become a master’s degree debt factory, churning out credentials of questionable value while generating billions in student loan debt.

Massive Debt Load: New Federal Data

The Higher Education Inquirer has recently received a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) response (25-01939-F) confirming the staggering financial footprint of Liberty University’s loan-driven model. According to the data, more than 290,000 Liberty University student loan debtors collectively owe over $8 billion in federal student loan debt.

This figure places Liberty among the nation’s top producers of student debt, especially at the graduate level. The data underscores the scale of Liberty’s online operation—and raises serious concerns about the value students are receiving in return for their investment.

From Moral Majority to Mass Marketing

Founded in 1971 by televangelist Jerry Falwell Sr., Liberty University was created to train “Champions for Christ.” In the 2000s, the university reinvented itself through online education, growing from a modest evangelical college into a global mega-university. Today, nearly 95,000 students are enrolled online—most of them nontraditional learners pursuing graduate credentials in fields like education, business, counseling, and theology.

This transformation was powered by digital marketing, religious rhetoric, and direct appeals to working adults and veterans. But what has emerged is a high-volume, low-engagement “robocollege” model that has led to massive student debt and mixed outcomes.

A For-Profit Model in Nonprofit Clothing

Though it operates as a nonprofit, Liberty functions much like a for-profit college. Its online programs generate an estimated $1 billion in annual revenue, mostly through federal student aid and military education benefits.

Students are funneled into fast-tracked, eight-week master’s programs that promise convenience but often fail to deliver quality or post-graduate opportunity. According to U.S. Department of Education data, median graduate student debt at Liberty ranges from $40,000 to $70,000, while returns on investment—measured in earnings and job placement—are questionable at best.

Robocollege for Warriors

Liberty markets itself as a military-friendly institution and has enrolled over 40,000 military-affiliated students in recent years. Through patriotic branding and targeted discounts, the university appeals to service members seeking affordable, faith-based education.

However, Liberty does not extend military tuition discounts to LGBTQ spouses or partners, effectively excluding same-sex families from benefits offered to heterosexual military couples. This discriminatory policy contradicts federal nondiscrimination principles but has gone unchallenged by any federal oversight agency, including the U.S. Department of Education, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The absence of accountability underscores a broader pattern: religious institutions like Liberty continue to receive billions in public funds while applying selective moral frameworks to exclude marginalized communities.

Liberty’s discriminatory practices add insult to injury for LGBTQ military students and their families, who are asked to sacrifice for their country but denied equal access to educational support.

Automated, Ideologically Charged Learning

Liberty’s academic model is highly automated and often superficial. Online coursework typically consists of textbook readings, quizzes, and templated discussion posts—with little direct instruction or feedback from faculty. Many students report that religious ideology is embedded in even technical fields, from business to engineering.

“They put scripture in every assignment—sometimes where it makes no sense,” said one former student.
“It’s more like an indoctrination pipeline than a graduate school,” added a military spouse who withdrew from the program.

Liberty’s online aviation program came under fire in 2023 when the VA suspended GI Bill payments due to quality concerns. Veterans were left stranded mid-program, forced to pause their education or self-fund tuition after losing federal support.

A Dual Identity: Race and Class Divides

Liberty’s racial and socioeconomic divides are stark. Its residential campus in Lynchburg, Virginia, is 74% white, with just 4% of students identifying as Black, 5% Latino, and 2% Asian or Pacific Islander. The number of African American students on campus has declined in recent years, even as national college demographics diversify.

This imbalance reflects Liberty’s historical roots: founder Jerry Falwell Sr. publicly defended racial segregation and opposed civil rights legislation in the 1960s. While Liberty has distanced itself from these positions rhetorically, the legacy remains visible in the composition and culture of the on-campus student body.

In contrast, Liberty University Online (LUO) is much more diverse. In 2017, only 51% of LUO undergraduates were white, and 15.4% identified as Black. Many LUO students are older, work full-time, and represent the multiracial, working-class America that Liberty’s campus culture does not reflect or represent.

Exploiting Faith and Patriotism

Liberty’s marketing presents education as a spiritual and patriotic calling—especially appealing to military families and first-generation students seeking purpose and stability. But behind the inspirational messaging lies a hard financial truth: many students are left with heavy debt and degrees that may not align with licensure standards or employer expectations.

Liberty pours resources into advertising and retention but spends comparatively little on faculty pay, student advising, or academic support. Complaints about misleading information, difficulty transferring credits, and job placement struggles are common.

Lack of Oversight, Political Protection

Despite numerous scandals—including leadership resignations, sexual misconduct coverups, and allegations of financial mismanagement—Liberty continues to operate with limited regulatory scrutiny. Its nonprofit status and political influence, particularly within conservative circles, shield it from the kind of oversight faced by for-profit colleges.

During the Trump administration, higher education accountability was dramatically weakened, giving Liberty and similar institutions near-total freedom to expand unchecked. That permissive environment remains largely intact.

A Cautionary Tale in Christian Capitalism

Liberty University’s rise reveals a troubling convergence of religion, profit, and political power. What’s marketed as moral education is often little more than credential inflation funded by public debt. And for students of color, LGBTQ families, and military veterans, the promises of upward mobility too often end in disappointment—and financial ruin.

With more than 290,000 Liberty student loan debtors owing over $8 billion, the scale of Liberty’s impact on the nation’s student debt crisis is undeniable. Yet its discriminatory practices, especially against LGBTQ military families, go unanswered by federal authorities.

For an institution claiming to train "Champions for Christ," Liberty’s actions tell a different story—one where profit is paramount, and equity is an afterthought.

---

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue investigating Liberty University and similar institutions, particularly those profiting from vulnerable populations under the banners of faith, freedom, and flag.