Harvard Removes 800 Graduate Students From Union, Citing Employment Status

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Graduate Education is Broken

Graduate education in the United States—especially doctoral education—is fundamentally broken. Sold as a noble pursuit of truth and a gateway to the ivory tower, the Ph.D. has become, for many, a pipeline into debt, precarious employment, and psychological distress. Despite the lofty ideals marketed by universities and celebrated in faculty speeches, the numbers and lived experiences of graduates tell a darker, more sobering story.

According to Leaving Academia by Christopher L. Caterine, only 7 percent of all doctoral students will become tenure-track professors. That statistic, quietly acknowledged in graduate lounges and whispered among disillusioned postdocs, is not an anomaly. It is the grim baseline. The academic system continues to lure thousands into graduate programs every year, fully aware that 93 percent of them will not land the career they were explicitly or implicitly promised.

In his 2015 book The Graduate School Mess, Columbia University professor Leonard Cassuto calls out the structural failures of the Ph.D. pipeline—citing inadequate career preparation, mentorship dysfunction, and the willful neglect of graduate outcomes. Graduate programs serve the needs of faculty and institutions far more than they serve the students themselves. The labor of graduate students powers undergraduate education and research output, but their futures are sacrificed to the prestige economy of the university.

Karen Kelsky, in her influential guide The Professor Is In, goes even further. Drawing on years of advising graduate students and job seekers, she pulls no punches: the academic job market is brutal, and the culture within graduate school is often toxic—especially for women, people of color, and those without financial safety nets. Kelsky's consulting business exists because so many Ph.D.s are desperate to claw their way out of a system that promised them intellectual fulfillment and delivered exploitation instead.

Making matters worse is the massive oversupply of labor, which has been quietly sustained by an influx of international students. Many of the remaining full-time academic positions—not to mention a growing number of graduate student slots—are held by international labor. These students and scholars often enter the system under the false assumption that hard work and merit will lead to a stable career in academia. In reality, their presence—exploited under the banner of "global academic exchange"—exacerbates the labor surplus, keeping wages low and competition high. It’s not their fault—it’s the system’s design.

Enter Cheeky Scientist, a consulting service built to help Ph.D.s pivot into industry. What was once called "alt-ac" (alternative academic) is now, for most, the main road out. If academia won’t hire you, the logic goes, rebrand yourself for tech, pharma, or finance. Entire cottage industries now exist to rescue doctoral graduates from the wreckage of their academic dreams.

Beyond job prospects lies another ignored reality: financial instability. Emily Roberts, through her platform Personal Finance for Ph.D.s, has helped shine a light on the dire economic situation many doctoral students face. Stipends often fail to meet basic living expenses, especially in cities like New York, Boston, or San Francisco. Few programs offer retirement contributions or basic financial literacy. The result? Many Ph.D.s graduate not just without a job, but with significant debt—especially those who funded earlier education with loans or had to self-finance part of their graduate training.

Roberts’ work underscores that financial precarity begins in the first year of grad school. Her interviews with graduate students reveal the systemic neglect: many rely on food pantries, delay medical care, or take on secret gig work to survive—while their advisors remain oblivious or indifferent.

What we have, then, is a system that overproduces credentials, underprepares people for life outside the academy, and clings to a 20th-century fantasy of academic meritocracy. Doctoral education is not just out of step with the job market—it is actively harmful in many cases.

Meanwhile, universities continue to benefit. The intellectual labor of graduate students and international scholars props up research labs, lecture halls, and college rankings. They are essential, yet disposable. Institutions show little incentive to reduce Ph.D. admissions or offer honest appraisals of job prospects. Why would they? The system works—for them.

Graduate education isn’t merely broken. It’s functioning exactly as designed—for the benefit of the few, at the expense of the many.

It is time for a reckoning.

US-China Trade War Escalates: What It Means for Chinese Students in America

The ongoing US-China trade war has intensified tensions between the two global superpowers, and higher education is feeling the impact. As President Donald Trump’s administration enforces harsher policies on China, international students—particularly those from China—are now caught in the crossfire of this economic and diplomatic battle. The implications for Chinese students hoping to study in the United States, as well as for American universities that have long relied on them, are becoming increasingly significant.

Visa Restrictions and Increased Scrutiny

One of the most immediate effects of the trade war has been on the student visa process. The Trump administration has imposed new restrictions on Chinese students, especially those studying in fields deemed sensitive to national security interests. This includes graduate students in areas like artificial intelligence, robotics, and quantum computing. The new visa policies make it more difficult for these students to enter the US, with extended waiting times and heightened scrutiny of visa applications.

While the US has historically been a top destination for Chinese students—who are not only drawn by world-class educational institutions but also the promise of future career opportunities—the tightening of visa regulations has caused many to reconsider. The fear of being caught in political crosswinds, combined with the uncertainty surrounding the trade war, has led to a growing number of Chinese students looking to study in countries with more stable diplomatic relations and less restrictive policies, such as Canada, Australia, or the UK.

Impact on US Universities and Research

US universities are feeling the ripple effects of this trade war, as Chinese students make up the largest group of international students in the country. According to the Institute of International Education, Chinese students contribute more than $14 billion annually to the US economy through tuition and living expenses. Universities that once welcomed these students with open arms are now grappling with declining enrollment numbers and the prospect of losing a significant revenue stream.

Research partnerships are also suffering. Chinese students, many of whom are pursuing graduate degrees in STEM fields, have been vital contributors to cutting-edge research at American universities. With restrictions tightening, universities may struggle to maintain their leadership in global innovation. Furthermore, many research projects that rely on international collaboration face delays or cancellations due to political tensions and fears of intellectual property theft.

Which Universities Will Be Hurt the Most?

Some of the most prestigious US universities stand to be disproportionately affected by the tightening of Chinese student visas and the broader trade conflict. Institutions that rely heavily on Chinese students both for their enrollment numbers and financial contributions may face significant challenges.

1. Top Ivy League Schools
   Ivy League schools, such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, have long been magnets for Chinese students. Harvard alone enrolled nearly 5,000 international students from China in recent years, and the closure of this recruitment pipeline could lead to steep declines in overall student numbers and financial stability for these schools. These universities also rely on international students to contribute to academic diversity and global research partnerships.

2. STEM-focused Universities
   Universities with strong STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) programs, such as the University of California, Berkeley, MIT, and Stanford, are among those most vulnerable. Chinese students make up a significant portion of graduate students in these fields, and many of them are involved in high-level research that contributes to American leadership in technology and innovation. The loss of Chinese graduate students could hinder research capabilities and potentially delay technological advancements.

3. Public Research Universities
   Public institutions like the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) also stand to lose large numbers of Chinese students. Many of these universities have established robust partnerships with Chinese institutions, facilitating exchange programs and joint research initiatives. With stricter visa policies and increased scrutiny, these collaborations could be jeopardized, weakening their global research standing.

4. Private Universities in Major Urban Centers
   Private universities, particularly those in major metropolitan areas like New York University (NYU), Columbia University, and University of Southern California (USC), which have long attracted a significant number of international students, may face financial strain as enrollment drops. These schools have benefited from the influx of full-paying international students, and their financial health could be seriously impacted if Chinese students—who often pay full tuition—choose to study elsewhere.

The Decline of Confucius Institutes: Another Impact of US-China Tensions

Adding another layer of complexity to the current situation is the steady decline of Confucius Institutes in the United States since 2018. These centers for Chinese language and cultural education were established with the goal of promoting Chinese culture, language, and knowledge of China’s social and political history. However, under the Trump administration, a growing number of universities have shut down or severed ties with their Confucius Institutes due to concerns over academic freedom and potential Chinese government influence.

The closure of Confucius Institutes is a direct result of the broader geopolitical tensions between the two nations. Critics argue that these centers, funded by the Chinese government, acted as a soft-power tool for Beijing, with the potential to influence curricula and suppress criticism of China’s policies. In 2020, the US State Department designated several Confucius Institutes as "foreign missions," further heightening scrutiny and prompting additional closures.

For US universities, the decline of Confucius Institutes has meant the loss of a long-established funding source, along with a reduction in cultural exchange programs that could have helped to mitigate the loss of students from China. Additionally, universities that hosted these centers are now grappling with how to reshape their Chinese language and cultural studies programs, often without the same level of institutional support.  In 2025, only five Confucius Institutes remain:

• Alfred University; Alfred, New York.
• Pacific Lutheran University; Tacoma, Washington.
• San Diego Global Knowledge University; San Diego, California.
• Troy University; Troy, Alabama.
• Webster University; St. Louis, Missouri.
• Wesleyan College; Macon, Georgia.

Increasing Tensions on US Campuses

As US-China relations continue to sour, tensions are also rising on US university campuses. A report from Radio Free Asia in August 2023 highlighted growing concerns about Chinese influence on US college campuses, particularly through initiatives like Confucius Institutes and Chinese student organizations. These groups, some of which have been accused of suppressing free speech and monitoring dissent, have faced increasing scrutiny from both US authorities and university administrations. In some cases, these organizations have been linked to the Chinese government’s broader propaganda efforts.

Students and faculty who advocate for human rights or criticize Chinese policies—especially regarding issues like Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang—have reported facing pressure or surveillance from Chinese-backed student groups. This growing sense of insecurity has led to a polarized environment, where Chinese students, in particular, are caught between their loyalty to their home country and the need to navigate a politically charged academic space.

Moreover, the US government’s push to restrict Chinese students in certain fields has further stoked fears of academic suppression and retaliation. The situation has created an atmosphere of uncertainty, making it difficult for both US and Chinese students to pursue their academic goals without being caught in the middle of geopolitical tensions.

The Broader Educational Landscape

In response to these challenges, some US universities are beginning to adjust their strategies to attract a more diverse range of international students. As the US-China relationship continues to sour, universities are looking to other countries—particularly those in Asia, Europe, and Latin America—to build new partnerships and recruitment channels.

While some US institutions are already shifting their focus to regions outside of China, others are doubling down on their internationalization efforts, exploring new ways to make studying in the US more attractive to foreign students. This includes offering scholarships and financial incentives for students from non-traditional countries, as well as expanding online learning opportunities for international students who may feel uneasy about traveling to the US under the current political climate.

Trade War as a Catalyst for Change

Though the US-China trade war presents significant challenges for both Chinese students and American universities, it also serves as a catalyst for change in higher education. This ongoing trade dispute underscores the importance of diversifying international student bodies and fostering collaborations beyond traditional powerhouses like China.

However, the situation raises larger questions about the future of global education. As more students choose to study elsewhere in the wake of tightened restrictions, the US risks losing its position as the world's leading destination for higher education. This would have lasting economic and cultural consequences, not only for the universities that rely on international students but also for the broader American public, which benefits from the ideas and innovation that foreign students bring to the country.

Looking Ahead

As the US-China trade war continues to unfold, the long-term impact on the international student landscape remains uncertain. While the trade war may ultimately result in stronger policies aimed at protecting US interests, it also threatens to undermine the very foundation of higher education in America—the free exchange of ideas and the global collaboration that drives innovation.

For US universities, the challenge now is to balance national security concerns with the need to remain open to international talent. The key will be maintaining a welcoming environment for students from all over the world while navigating the complexities of global politics. After all, the future of American higher education—and its ability to lead on the world stage—depends on the continued exchange of ideas, research, and cultural experiences, regardless of geopolitical conflicts.

Growing Up Later, Paying Longer: How Extended Adolescence Deepens the Student Loan Crisis

Recent neuroscience is challenging everything we thought we knew about adulthood. A landmark study from the University of Cambridge finds that our brains remain in an “adolescent” phase until around age 32. During this extended period, the brain undergoes major structural rewiring, improving connectivity, executive function, and decision-making. In other words, young adults in their 20s and early 30s are still biologically refining the very skills society expects them to rely on for financial independence.

Yet economic realities tell a different story. In the United States, the average college graduate carries over $30,000 in student loan debt, with repayment often starting immediately after graduation. For students pursuing graduate or professional school — law, medicine, business, or PhDs — debt often doubles or triples, and repayment is further delayed, sometimes beginning in the late 20s or early 30s. This period coincides precisely with the brain’s extended adolescent development phase, when executive function, risk assessment, and long-term planning are still maturing.

For many working-class students, this biological-economic mismatch is compounded by trauma and systemic inequality. Students from lower-income families may enter college already carrying family debt, needing to work multiple jobs, or facing housing insecurity. Borrowing to attend graduate school can trigger stress responses in the brain, affecting decision-making, emotional regulation, and risk assessment at a time when these very circuits are still developing. Early-life adversity, including exposure to poverty, unstable housing, or family stress, can alter brain development and magnify the challenges of managing debt during the extended adolescent phase. The combination of prolonged brain maturation, massive student debt, and class-based stressors can increase anxiety, depression, and burnout, especially for first-generation and working-class students who may lack generational financial knowledge.

Graduate education intensifies these pressures. Graduate students often juggle heavy workloads, research obligations, and living costs while navigating large financial obligations at a developmental stage where executive functions are still stabilizing. High debt and extended schooling push milestones such as homeownership, family formation, and career stability into the early-to-mid 30s, overlapping with the final phase of brain maturation. For working-class students, who often have fewer safety nets, financial missteps or delayed income can be more consequential and stressful, amplifying the inequities embedded in higher education financing.

Addressing student loan burdens requires policies that recognize both neurodevelopmental science and socioeconomic realities. Repayment programs that delay full payments until the late 20s or early 30s would reduce stress during a critical brain development window. Income-contingent or progressive repayment plans can scale obligations with early-career earnings, particularly for graduate students carrying high debt burdens. Financial literacy and counseling programs must also integrate trauma-informed support, teaching budgeting and debt management while recognizing the emotional impacts of financial stress. Mental health resources should be accessible for students navigating the combined pressures of debt, class-based disadvantage, and developmental transitions. Systemic reform in higher education financing, including expanded grants, debt-free programs, fellowships, and living stipends, would reduce structural disadvantages for working-class students and support more equitable access to higher education.

Prolonged adolescence reframes the student debt crisis, particularly for graduate students and working-class borrowers. Our brains continue to mature into the early 30s, yet financial systems demand fully developed decision-making skills much earlier. For students from lower-income families, this gap is widened by trauma, structural inequality, and fewer safety nets. To support healthy, resilient, and economically secure generations, policymakers must recognize that growing up biologically and psychologically takes longer than society allows, and that debt obligations should not compound trauma or class disadvantage. Aligning financial policy with developmental science and social equity is not just fair — it is essential.
Sources


University of Cambridge. “Five Lifespan Phases of Brain Development Revealed by MRI Study.” Nature Communications, 2025. https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/five-ages-human-brain


MSN / Independent. “Adolescence Lasts into Your 30s, Major New Study Finds.” 2025. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/adolescence-lasts-into-your-30s-major-new-study-on-brain-finds/ar-AA1R9uhF


Arslan, S., et al. “Modular Segregation of Structural Brain Networks Supports Executive Function in Youth.” NeuroImage, 2016. https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.03619


Bethlehem, R.A.I., et al. “Preferential Detachment During Human Brain Development: Age- and Sex-Specific Structural Connectivity in DTI Data.” 2014. https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.0240


Aljazeera. “Does Adolescence Last Until 32? Scientists Unlock Brain’s Five Eras.” 2025. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/26/does-adolescence-last-until-32-scientists-unlock-brains-five-eras


U.S. Federal Reserve. “Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households: 2025.” https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2025-economic-well-being-of-us-households.html

Liberty University Online: Master’s Degree Debt Factory

Liberty University, one of the largest Christian universities in the United States, 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.

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 school found new life through online education, transforming from a small evangelical college into a mega-university with nearly 95,000 online students, the vast majority of them enrolled in nontraditional and graduate programs.

By leveraging aggressive digital marketing, religious appeals, and promises of career advancement, Liberty has positioned itself as a go-to destination for working adults and military veterans seeking master's degrees. But this rapid expansion has not come without costs — especially for the students who enroll.

A For-Profit Model in Nonprofit Clothing

Though technically a nonprofit, Liberty University operates with many of the same profit-driven incentives as for-profit colleges. Its online programs generate massive revenues — an estimated $1 billion annually — thanks in large part to federal student aid programs. Students are encouraged to take on loans to pay for master’s degrees in education, counseling, business, and theology, among other fields. Many of these programs are offered in accelerated formats that cater to working adults but often lack the rigor, support, or job placement outcomes associated with traditional graduate schools.

Federal data shows that many Liberty students, especially graduate students, take on substantial debt. According to the U.S. Department of Education’s College Scorecard, the median graduate student debt at Liberty can range from $40,000 to more than $70,000, depending on the program. Meanwhile, the return on investment is often dubious, with low median earnings and high rates of student loan forbearance or default.

Exploiting Faith and Patriotism

Liberty’s marketing strategy is finely tuned to appeal to Christian conservatives, homeschoolers, veterans, and working parents. By framing education as a moral and patriotic duty, Liberty convinces students that enrolling in an online master’s program is both a personal and spiritual investment. Testimonials of “calling” and “purpose” are common, but the financial realities can be harsh.

Many students report feeling misled by promises of job readiness or licensure, especially in education and counseling fields, where state licensing requirements can differ dramatically from what Liberty prepares students for. Others cite inadequate academic support and difficulties transferring credits.

 The university spends heavily on recruitment and retention, often at the expense of student services and academic quality.

Lack of Oversight and Accountability

Liberty University benefits from minimal federal scrutiny compared to for-profit schools, largely because of its nonprofit status and political connections. The institution maintains close ties to conservative lawmakers and was a vocal supporter of the Trump administration, which rolled back regulations on higher education accountability.

Despite a series of internal scandals — including financial mismanagement, sexual misconduct cover-ups, and leadership instability following the resignation of Jerry Falwell Jr. — Liberty has continued to expand its online presence. Its graduate programs, particularly in education and counseling, remain cash cows that draw in federal loan dollars with few checks on student outcomes.

A Cautionary Tale in Christian Capitalism

The story of Liberty University Online is not just about one school. It reflects a broader trend in American higher education: the merging of religion, capitalism, and credential inflation. As more employers demand advanced degrees for mid-level jobs, and as traditional institutions struggle to adapt, schools like Liberty have seized the opportunity to market hope — even if it comes at a high cost.

For students of faith seeking upward mobility, Liberty promises a path to both spiritual and professional fulfillment. But for many, the result is a diploma accompanied by tens of thousands in debt and limited economic return. The moral reckoning may not be just for Liberty University, but for the policymakers and accreditors who continue to enable this lucrative cycle of debt and disillusionment.

---

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to investigate Liberty University Online and similar institutions as part of our ongoing series on higher education debt, inequality, and regulatory failure.

House Republicans Push Sweeping Student Aid Cuts, Threatening Access for Millions

In a dramatic reshaping of the federal student aid system, House Republicans have introduced a 103-page legislative package that could raise the cost of college for millions of Americans while slashing $185 billion in federal spending over the next decade.

The legislation, a centerpiece of the GOP's budget reconciliation strategy, takes direct aim at key financial aid programs that have historically supported low-income, working-class, and underrepresented students. Education advocates and consumer protection groups warn the proposed cuts would deepen existing inequities in higher education and saddle a new generation of students with greater debt and fewer protections.

Tighter Pell Grant Requirements

Among the most contentious provisions is a proposal to tighten eligibility for the Pell Grant, the federal government’s primary need-based aid program. Under the bill, students would be required to complete 30 credit hours per academic year—up from the current 24—to receive the full grant. Those taking fewer than six credit hours would become ineligible altogether, even if they need just one class to graduate.

“While we support initiatives to reduce the time it takes for students to attain a degree, this approach may jeopardize time to completion for students who work part time,” said Kim Cook, CEO of the National College Attainment Network. “By increasing students’ unmet financial need, this proposal will also drive up student borrowing for millions.”

Cook’s organization estimates the new requirements would affect roughly 25% of current Pell Grant recipients, many of whom balance school with jobs or caregiving responsibilities.

Elimination of Subsidized Loans and Loan Access Limits

The bill also proposes to eliminate subsidized federal loans, which currently allow undergraduates to avoid interest accrual while in school. A limited three-year exemption would apply to students enrolled as of June 30, 2026.

“House Republicans propose charging low-income students more interest by ending the subsidized loan program for students with financial need,” said Abby Shafroth, co-director of advocacy at the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC).

Additionally, the bill would eliminate the PLUS Loan program for graduate students, capping lifetime borrowing at $100,000 for master’s degrees and $150,000 for law and medical students—figures that fall short of the actual cost of many programs.

Sweeping Changes to Repayment Plans

Perhaps the most far-reaching changes involve student loan repayment. The bill would consolidate the current four repayment options into just two: a standard 10-year plan and a single income-driven repayment (IDR) plan. The move would dismantle President Biden’s Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan, which is already facing legal challenges.

The new IDR plan would require borrowers to pay 15% of their discretionary income—defined as income above 150% of the federal poverty line. That represents a sharp increase over current IDR plans, where many borrowers pay 5% to 10%.

According to the NCLC, this change could more than triple monthly payments for borrowers enrolled in SAVE and force impoverished families to divert funds from essentials like food, rent, or medication.

The repayment timeline would also lengthen, with forgiveness arriving only after 20 years for undergraduate debt and 25 years for those with graduate loans. A new "Repayment Assistance Plan" would extend repayment to 30 years for many borrowers before they become eligible for forgiveness.

“These changes will add to the growing number of low-income older adults still burdened by student loan debt,” said Kyra Taylor, a senior attorney at NCLC. “It’s entirely possible that low-income Americans will still be paying off their own college debt when their children are entering college themselves.”

Rollback of Borrower Protections

The legislation also weakens borrower defense and school closure discharge rules, which offer relief to students defrauded by predatory institutions or impacted by sudden school closures.

The NCLC notes that the bill “rolls back common-sense regulations that would streamline relief for borrowers where the Department of Education has evidence that the school lied and used deception to enroll students in low-quality programs.”

Political and Economic Context

This legislation is part of a broader GOP initiative to slash $1.5 trillion in federal spending to fund former President Donald Trump’s proposed tax cuts, military expansion, and border security initiatives. House Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI) has been charged with identifying $330 billion in cuts—placing higher education directly in the crosshairs.

The bill may clear the Republican-controlled House, but its prospects in the narrowly divided Senate remain uncertain. Nonetheless, its introduction signals a renewed ideological clash over the federal role in expanding access to higher education.

Dr. Jamal Watson, author of the forthcoming book The Student Debt Crisis: America’s Moral Urgency, argues the legislation would disproportionately harm students of color, first-generation college-goers, and adult learners.

“The policies in this bill reflect a profound misunderstanding—or disregard—for the lived realities of today’s students,” said Watson. “If passed, it will exacerbate inequality and leave millions further behind.”

The Enshitification of Higher Education in the United States

Cory Doctorow’s theory of enshitification—originally coined to describe how digital platforms decay over time—perfectly captures the grim evolution of U.S. higher education. Institutions that once positioned themselves as public goods now exist primarily to sustain themselves, extracting revenue, prestige, and labor at the expense of students, faculty, and the broader public.

In the post–World War II era, higher education in the United States was broadly seen as a driver of social mobility, economic growth, and democratic citizenship. The GI Bill and substantial state funding opened college doors to millions. Tuition at public institutions was minimal or nonexistent. Academic freedom, faculty governance, and research for the common good were foundational ideals.

By the 1980s, neoliberal policies began to reshape the higher education landscape. Public disinvestment led institutions to rely more heavily on tuition, philanthropy, corporate partnerships, and student debt. Universities became more bureaucratic and brand-conscious. Students were reframed as consumers, and education as a commodity. Faculty positions gave way to underpaid adjunct labor, and Online Program Managers like 2U, Academic Partnerships (aka Risepoint) and Kaplan emerged to monetize digital learning. Marketing budgets ballooned. Classrooms and research labs became secondary to enrollment targets and revenue generation.

A 2019 Higher Education Inquirer report revealed how elite universities joined the downward spiral. Institutions like Harvard, Yale, and USC outsourced online graduate programs to 2U, employing aggressive recruitment tactics that resembled those of discredited for-profit colleges. Applicants were encouraged to take on excessive debt for degrees with uncertain returns. Whistleblowers likened it to fraud-by-phone—evidence that even the most prestigious universities were embracing an extractive model.

Doctoral education offers a deeper glimpse into how enshitification has hollowed out academia. Sold as a noble pursuit of truth and a path to secure academic employment, the Ph.D. has become, for many, a journey into economic instability, psychological distress, and underemployment. Only a small percentage of doctoral students land tenure-track jobs. Graduate schools continue to admit far more students than they can responsibly support, while providing little preparation for careers outside academia. Mentorship is often lacking, and financial support is frequently inadequate. Many graduate students rely on food pantries, defer medical care, or take on gig work just to survive. Meanwhile, universities benefit from their labor in teaching and research.

International graduate students face even steeper challenges. Promised opportunity, they instead encounter a saturated job market, low wages, and immigration precarity. Their labor props up U.S. research and rankings, but their long-term prospects are often bleak.

The rise of career-transition consultants—like Cheeky Scientist and The Professor Is In—has become a booming cottage industry, a byproduct of the failed academic job pipeline. For most Ph.D.s, what was once considered “alternative academia” is now the only path forward.

Financial hardship compounds the crisis. Graduate stipends in many programs are far below local living wages, especially in high-cost cities like San Francisco, Boston, or New York. Few programs provide retirement benefits or financial literacy resources. The financial toll of earning a doctorate is often hidden until students are years deep into their programs—and years behind in wealth accumulation.

Meanwhile, university medical centers—often affiliated with elite institutions—offer a parallel example of institutional enshitification. These hospitals have long histories of exploitation, particularly of poor and minority patients. Even today, these facilities prioritize affluent patients and donors, while relying on precariously employed staff and treating marginalized communities as research subjects. The disparities are systematic and ongoing. The rhetoric of innovation and healing masks a legacy of racial injustice and extractive labor practices.

Legacy admissions further entrench inequality. While race-conscious admissions have been rolled back, legacy preferences remain largely untouched. They serve to maintain elite networks, ensuring that wealth and access remain intergenerational. These policies not only contradict the rhetoric of meritocracy but also deepen structural inequities in the name of tradition.

Today, higher education serves itself. Institutions protect billion-dollar endowments, award executive salaries in the millions, expand sports programs and real estate portfolios, and depend on underpaid faculty and indebted students. Campuses are rife with inequality, surveillance of student protest, and performative gestures of inclusion, even as DEI initiatives are gutted by state governments or internal austerity.

The consequences are clear. Enrollment is declining. Campuses are closing. Faculty are being laid off. Public trust is eroding. And even elite institutions are feeling the strain. Doctorow’s theory suggests that once a system has fully enshittified, collapse becomes inevitable. The College Meltdown is not hypothetical—it’s here.

And yet, collapse can be a beginning. Higher education must be radically reimagined: public investment, tuition-free education, student debt relief, labor protections, honest admissions policies, and genuine democratic governance. The alternative is more of the same: a system that costs more, delivers less, and cannibalizes its future to feed its prestige economy.

---

Selected Sources

Caterine, Christopher L. Leaving Academia: A Practical Guide. Princeton University Press, 2020.

Cassuto, Leonard. The Graduate School Mess: What Caused It and How We Can Fix It. Harvard University Press, 2015.

Kelsky, Karen. The Professor Is In: The Essential Guide to Turning Your Ph.D. into a Job. Three Rivers Press, 2015.

Roberts, Emily. Personal Finance for Ph.D.s. https://www.pfforphds.com

Shaulis, Dahn. “2U Expands College Meltdown to Elite Universities.” Higher Education Inquirer, Oct. 4, 2019. https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2019/10/college-meltdown-expands-to-elite.html

Shaulis, Dahn. “The Dark Legacy of Elite University Medical Centers.” Higher Education Inquirer, Mar. 13, 2025. https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2025/03/the-dark-legacy-of-elite-university.html

Doctorow, Cory. “TikTok's Enshittification.” Pluralistic.net, Jan. 21, 2023. https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/

American Association of University Professors. Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, 2023. https://www.aaup.org

National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. Current Term Enrollment Estimates, 2024. https://nscresearchcenter.org

Newfield, Christopher. The Great Mistake: How We Wrecked Public Universities and How We Can Fix Them. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016.

Goldrick-Rab, Sara. Paying the Price: College Costs, Financial Aid, and the Betrayal of the American Dream. University of Chicago Press, 2016.

Roth, Gary. The Educated Underclass: Students and the Promise of Social Mobility. Pluto Press, 2019.

Teen Vogue. “The Movement Against Legacy Admissions.” Jan. 2, 2025. https://www.teenvogue.com/story/movement-against-legacy-admissions

The Guardian. “‘Affirmative Action for the Privileged’: Why Democrats Are Fighting Legacy Admissions.” Aug. 11, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/aug/11/college-legacy-admissions-affirmative-action-democrats

Penn Graduate Students (GET-UP) Authorize Strike as Contract Talks Falter

Graduate student workers at Penn have overwhelmingly authorized a strike — a decisive move in their fight for fair pay, stronger benefits, and comprehensive protections. The vote reflects not only deep frustration with stalled negotiations but also the growing momentum of graduate-worker organizing nationwide.

A year of bargaining — and growing frustration

Since winning union recognition in May 2024, GET‑UP has spent over a year negotiating with Penn administrators on their first collective-bargaining agreement. Despite 35 bargaining sessions and tentative agreements on several non-economic issues, key demands — especially around compensation, benefits, and protections for international students — remain unmet.

Many observers see the strike authorization as long overdue. “After repeated delays and insulting offers, this was the only way to signal our seriousness,” said a member of the bargaining committee. Support for the strike among graduate workers is overwhelmingly strong, reflecting a shared determination to secure livable wages and protections commensurate with the vital labor they provide.

Strike authorization: a powerful tool

From Nov. 18–20, GET‑UP conducted a secret-ballot vote open to roughly 3,400 eligible graduate employees. About two-thirds voted, and 92% of votes cast authorized a strike, giving the union discretion to halt academic work at a moment’s notice.

Striking graduate workers, many of whom serve as teaching or research assistants, would withhold all academic labor — including teaching, grading, and research — until a contract with acceptable terms is reached. Penn has drafted “continuity plans” for instruction in the event of a strike, which union organizers have criticized as strikebreaking.

Demands: beyond a stipend increase

GET‑UP’s contract demands include:

• A living wage for graduate workers

• Expanded benefits: health, vision, dental, dependent coverage

• Childcare support and retirement contributions

• Protections for international and immigrant students

• Strong anti-discrimination, harassment, and inclusive-pronoun / gender-neutral restroom protections

While Penn has agreed to some non-economic protections, many critical provisions remain unresolved. The stakes are high: graduate workers form the backbone of research and teaching at the university, yet many struggle to survive on modest stipends.

Context: a national wave of UAW wins

Penn’s graduate workers are part of a broader wave of successful organizing by the United Auto Workers (UAW) and allied graduate unions. Recent years have seen UAW-affiliated graduate-worker locals achieve significant victories at institutions including Cornell, Columbia, Harvard, Northwestern, and across the University of California (UC) system.

At UC, a massive systemwide strike in 2022–2023 involving tens of thousands of Graduate Student Researchers (GSRs) and Academic Student Employees (ASEs) secured three-year contracts with major gains:

• Wage increases of 55–80% over prior levels, establishing a livable baseline salary.

• Expanded health and dependent coverage, childcare subsidies, paid family leave, and fee remission.

• Stronger protections against harassment, improved disability accommodations, and support for international student workers.

• Consolidation of bargaining units across ASEs and GSRs, strengthening long-term collective power.

These gains demonstrate that even large, resource-rich institutions can be compelled to recognize graduate labor as essential, and to provide fair compensation and protections. They also show that coordinated, determined action — including strike authorization — can yield significant, lasting change.

What’s next

With strike authorization in hand, GET‑UP holds a powerful bargaining tool. While a strike remains a last resort, the overwhelming support among members signals that the union is prepared to act decisively to secure a fair contract. The UC precedent, along with wins at other UAW graduate-worker locals, suggests that Penn could follow the same path, translating student-worker momentum into meaningful, tangible improvements.

The outcome could have major implications not just for Penn, but for graduate-worker organizing across the country — reinforcing that organized graduate labor is increasingly a central force in higher education.

---

Sources

• Penn graduate workers union authorizes strike vote

• Ongoing contract negotiations at Penn

• AAUP-Penn denounces university “strikebreaking” memo

• Bargaining updates for graduate workers

• UC graduate workers end strike with historic three-year contract

• Liberation News: UC Academic Workers Win Historic Contracts

Cornell Grad Union Turmoil: Miscommunication, Mistrust, and Muddled Messaging

A storm is brewing at Cornell University, and it's not about grades or research deadlines. Instead, it’s a tangled fight over dues, deductions, and the real meaning of union representation. What began as a landmark moment for graduate student labor has devolved into a confusing and frustrating ordeal—marked by unclear messaging, clashing narratives, and growing mistrust.

At the center of this dispute is a disagreement over the nature of the union contract ratified by the Cornell Graduate Students United (CGSU-UE Local 300). Many graduate workers believe they voted on a contract that clearly offered three options: join the union and pay dues, decline membership but pay an agency fee, or claim a sincerely held religious belief and donate the equivalent amount to one of three designated charities. This religious exemption is grounded in the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) definition, which can include moral or ethical beliefs.

Despite this seemingly open-shop structure, union leadership has continued to claim that they won a union shop agreement. A flyer circulated by CGSU recently declared, “We did not fight so hard for union shop just for Cornell to deny its implementation.” But many students say that this doesn’t match the actual text of the contract they voted on. A growing number are asking how a union shop can exist when the contract explicitly allows for a charitable opt-out. One graduate student wrote online, “Union shop was never won. You told us to vote for the contract that explicitly had an open shop.”

Further compounding the confusion is the union’s omission of the charitable opt-out in key communications. According to student posts on Reddit, CGSU has failed to mention this third option in emails and on its website, where it only refers to the options of paying dues or agency fees. Reddit user hexaflexarex noted that while the contract technically isn’t a union shop, the requirement that charitable donations match union dues makes it functionally similar. Still, they criticized the union for not being more transparent, and pointed out that Cornell is now refusing to process payroll deductions because of this lack of clarity.

Cornell’s position, as interpreted from internal correspondence, appears to be that CGSU’s failure to advertise the religious exemption violates the agreement. The university has suspended all payroll deductions—meaning neither dues nor agency fees are being collected—until the union adequately informs workers of their options and provides the proper authorization forms. But questions remain about who is responsible for issuing those forms. Some students say CGSU has already sent out union card-signing forms, which authorize dues deductions. Others argue the union has not clearly made the forms available or has not clarified how the religious opt-out process works.

The r/Cornell subreddit has become a hotspot for dissecting the situation, with graduate students passionately debating everything from contract law to the ethics of organized labor. Some say the union is bungling its responsibilities. Others argue Cornell is seizing on a technicality to undermine the union. One user pointed out that the union’s religious exemption clause is actually broader than what is required by law, potentially making the “open shop” argument even stronger. Another user, VeganRiblets, noted that the contract refers vaguely to EEOC definitions instead of explicitly stating “moral or ethical beliefs,” which has led to unnecessary confusion. “Cornell made a mistake by not insisting on more explicit language,” they said. “Not that it excuses the union’s misleading messaging, but this could have been avoided.”

Tensions are high. The union says it is merely implementing the strongest union shop clause it could within legal boundaries, given the restrictions imposed by Supreme Court rulings like Janus v. AFSCME. Critics say the union overpromised and underdelivered, misleading its members and failing to communicate its strategy. One grad student summed up the frustration: “That email chain is very helpful though. Good to know that the union leadership communicates just as poorly with the admin as they do with bargaining unit members.”

Others accuse the union of focusing too heavily on political causes outside the scope of labor negotiations, and squandering bargaining leverage that could have been used to secure better pay or healthcare. Meanwhile, the administration is accused of stonewalling and weaponizing ambiguity to avoid honoring the financial commitments in the contract.

Even the most engaged students seem unsure what exactly they signed up for. A recent post perhaps captured the bewilderment best: “We’re all here to get PhDs. I am certain we are smart enough to figure this out.” But even PhD students need clarity and honesty. At this point, both the union and the university have failed to provide either. If Cornell’s graduate labor movement is going to move forward, it must start with a simple step: telling the truth, plainly and completely, to the people it represents.

How Would Trump's Plans for Mass Deportations Affect US Higher Education?

 

Donald Trump and JD Vance promise to begin mass deportations in 2025 if they win the November 2024 US election. It's a populist idea that has a long history in the US. And it's understandable that many struggling Americans would favor a program that would eliminate from the competition those people who were not born in the US, and came here with or without documents. 

This America First plan would expel about 11 million men, women, and children, break up millions of families and an untold number of communities, and affect not just businesses but entire industries. Deportees would include those who have crossed the borders with Mexico and Canada. But it could also include hundreds of thousands of non-white workers who have had their visas expire for a number of reasons, including temporary unemployment.

Those folks who concerned about these mass deportations should take Trump and Vance's words seriously--and vote accordingly. Struggling citizens who believe they will get better work or have a better life as a result of Trump policies should also consider whether this is true--and also consider all the other structural reasons for their plight--and vote accordingly. Before November, everyone who is voting should also know about the potential effects of these policies for their communities, counties, states, regions, and the nation. 

The Heritage Foundation's 2025 Mandate for Leadership, makes this promise of mass deportations more than a pipe dream. Under a program this radical, we should also expect a backlash on and off college campuses. One that we hope would be nonviolent. Republicans such as Vance have already called professors and universities enemies of the state and of the People, and we should take them at their words.

Foreign relations under a second Trump Administration could also trigger mass surveillance and deportations of students from the People's Republic of China and other nations deemed as enemies. In 2024, Chinese students have already reported being interrogated and deported. 

Plans to deport legally documented persons labeled as enemies or radicals, such as those who protest the horrors in Palestine, or call for global climate action, are also a distinct possibility. 

A Trump-Vance Administration could also restrict named threats from entering and reentering the US, with help from the US Supreme Court, which they have done before. They could reinstitute the Trump "Muslim ban."

And we cannot rule out that a Trump Administration could require federal troops to use force, if necessary, to maintain order on college and university campuses.

Mass deportations of undocumented workers and foreign students would have several significant impacts on colleges and universities and the communities they serve. This includes:

1. Decreased enrollment and diversity: Many undocumented students and foreign students would be forced to leave, reducing overall enrollment numbers and campus diversity.

2. Loss of talent: Deportations would result in the loss of talented students and researchers, including those with college or graduate degrees, negatively impacting academic programs and research output.

3. Financial strain: Universities would lose tuition revenue from deported students, potentially leading to budget cuts and program reductions.

4. Workforce shortages: Higher education institutions rely on both undocumented and foreign workers in various roles. Their deportation would create staffing shortages across academic and support positions.

5. Research and innovation setbacks: The loss of foreign graduate students and researchers would hinder ongoing research projects and slow innovation in STEM fields and other areas.

6. Reduced global competitiveness: US universities may become less attractive to international students, potentially damaging their global rankings and competitiveness.

7. Economic impact on college towns: Many college towns rely on the economic contributions of international and undocumented students. Their removal would affect local businesses and housing markets.

8. Disruption of academic programs: Sudden deportations could disrupt ongoing classes, research projects, and academic collaborations.

9. Brain drain: The forced departure of educated immigrants and students could lead to a "brain drain," with talent and skills leaving the US higher education system.

10. Social and cultural impact: The loss of diverse perspectives from undocumented and international students would diminish the cultural richness and global understanding fostered on campuses.

11. Potential closure of specialized programs: Some niche academic programs that rely heavily on international student enrollment might face closure due to insufficient student numbers.

12. Increased administrative burden: Universities would face additional administrative challenges in complying with and managing the consequences of mass deportation policies.

These impacts highlight the significant role that undocumented workers and foreign students play in the US higher education system, and the potential disruptions that mass deportations could cause across academic, economic, and social dimensions.

Citations:

[1] https://cmsny.org/publications/mass-deportations-impoverish-us-families-create-immense-costs/

[2] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/233150241700500101

[3] https://www.communitypsychology.com/effects-of-deportation-on-families-communities/

[4] https://reason.com/volokh/2024/03/10/mass-deportations-of-immigrants-destroy-more-native-born-american-jobs-than-they-create/

[5] https://washingtonmonthly.com/2024/05/21/trumps-plans-for-mass-deportation-would-be-an-economic-disaster/

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.

More Schools Report Visa Revocations and Student Detentions

Reports have surfaced of a significant increase in the number of international student visas being revoked and students being detained across various universities in the United States. This follows heightened immigration scrutiny, particularly under the administration of Donald Trump. According to Senator Marco Rubio, more than 300 international student visas have been pulled in recent months, primarily targeting students involved in political activism or minor infractions. WeAreHigherEd has named 30 schools where students' visas have been revoked. 

Campus Abductions — We Are Higher Ed

Key Universities Affected

• University of California System (UCLA, UC San Diego, UC Berkeley):
  Universities within the University of California system, which hosts a large international student population, have reported multiple visa cancellations. These revocations have affected students involved in pro-Palestinian protests, political activism, or perceived violations of U.S. immigration policies. For instance, the University of California has seen as many as 20 students affected in recent weeks.

• Columbia University:
  At Columbia University, the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a student activist, has gained significant media attention. Khalil, who was detained and faced deportation, exemplifies the growing concerns over student rights and the growing impact of politically charged visa revocations.

• Tufts University:
  Tufts University is currently battling the Trump administration over the case of Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish graduate student whose visa was revoked. Her detention and the ensuing legal battles highlight the growing tensions between academic freedom and government policy. Tufts and its student body are advocating for Öztürk's release and seeking clarification on the legal processes involved.

• University of Minnesota:
  At the University of Minnesota, one international graduate student was detained as part of an ongoing federal crackdown on visa violations. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions continue to raise concerns over the rights of international students to remain in the country, especially as visa renewals and compliance checks become more stringent.

• Arizona State University:
  Arizona State University has also reported incidents of international students having their visas revoked without prior notice. These revocations have affected students from various countries, creating uncertainty within the international student community at the university.

• Cornell University:
  At Cornell University, international students have similarly faced unexpected visa cancellations. This has raised concerns about the ability of universities to adequately support their international student populations, as students are left to navigate the complexities of visa status without sufficient notice or explanation.

• North Carolina State University:
  North Carolina State University is another institution where international students have had their visas revoked without notice. The university has expressed concern over the lack of clarity from immigration authorities, which has left students in a precarious situation.

• University of Oregon:
  The University of Oregon has experienced several cases of international students having their visas revoked. This has been particularly troubling for students who were actively pursuing their education in the U.S. and now face the prospect of deportation or being forced to leave the country unexpectedly.

• University of Texas:
  At the University of Texas, international students have faced visa issues, with several reports of revocations and detentions, affecting students who are working toward completing their degrees. This has sparked protests and advocacy efforts from both students and university administration, seeking more transparency in the process.

• University of Colorado:
  The University of Colorado has similarly reported instances of international student visa revocations, particularly affecting those involved in political activism. The university has been working to support students impacted by these actions, although many are left in limbo regarding their ability to continue their studies.

• University of Michigan:
  The University of Michigan has also been impacted by a wave of visa revocations. Similar to other institutions, students involved in political protests or activism have found themselves under scrutiny, facing the risk of detention or deportation. Students, faculty, and staff are pushing for clearer policies and legal protections to support international students, who are increasingly at risk due to the political environment.

The Broader Implications

These incidents of visa revocation and detentions are seen as part of a broader trend of increasing immigration enforcement under the Trump administration. Critics argue that these actions infringe upon students' rights, potentially violating freedom of speech and academic freedom. International students, especially those participating in protests or political discourse, have found themselves at risk of being detained or deported, with little prior notice or transparency regarding the reasons for such actions.

Moreover, the economic impact of these actions is significant. In 2023, a record 253,355 student visa applications were denied, representing a 36% refusal rate. This has major implications not only for the affected students but also for U.S. universities that rely heavily on international students for tuition revenue. The financial loss could be as much as $7.6 billion in tuition fees and living expenses, further emphasizing the broader consequences of these policies.

Legal and Administrative Responses

Many universities are rallying behind their international student populations, with advocacy efforts from institutions like Tufts University and Columbia University. These universities have criticized the abruptness of the visa cancellations and detentions, calling for more transparency and due process.

However, despite these efforts, the political climate surrounding U.S. immigration remains volatile, and it is unclear whether policy changes will result in more lenient or more restrictive measures for international students.

Conclusion

These stories underscore the fragile position of international students in the U.S. today. With incidents of detentions and visa revocations increasing, students face significant challenges navigating the complexities of U.S. immigration law, particularly those involved in political or activist circles. University administrations and students alike continue to call for clearer policies, protections for international student rights, and more transparent practices to avoid the unintended consequences of politically motivated visa actions.

This issue remains ongoing, with much at stake for both