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

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.”

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 

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.

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

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.

A Growing Wall: International Students from Dozens of Nations Face Potential U.S. Entry Ban

Under President Donald Trump’s second term, U.S. immigration policy has taken another dramatic and punitive turn—this time targeting international students not only from historically marginalized nations but also from America’s largest educational partners. A leaked State Department memo dated June 14 warns that 36 additional countries, most of them in Africa, face imminent visa restrictions unless they meet stringent new compliance standards within 60 days. The consequences could be devastating—not just for prospective students, but for those already here, many of whom have been detained, deported, or left the country in fear.

While the list in the memo includes countries such as Nigeria, Egypt, Ghana, Ethiopia, and Cameroon—nations that send thousands of students to the United States—what is already unfolding extends beyond the African continent. Students from China and India, the top two sources of international enrollment in the U.S., have also found themselves caught in an increasingly hostile environment.

Hundreds of students from China and India have already been detained, interrogated, and in some cases deported at airports across the U.S., even when holding valid visas. Customs and Border Protection agents have reportedly cited vague “national security concerns” or accused students of being affiliated with banned organizations, including universities linked to Chinese military or surveillance activity. In some instances, students have been denied entry without access to legal representation, held overnight, and put on planes home.

In April, multiple Indian graduate students—some with full scholarships—were refused entry at U.S. airports and summarily deported. Others have chosen to abandon their programs altogether, fearing further harassment or immigration complications. The same pattern is playing out among Chinese students, especially those in STEM fields, who are now seen by some U.S. officials as potential security threats.

Meanwhile, the State Department’s June 14 memo sets its sights on a broad new swath of countries. If restrictions go into effect, they will impact not only future student visa applicants but also those currently enrolled in the U.S. who may soon find themselves unable to renew visas, travel for family emergencies, or continue their studies without disruption.

The original June 4 proclamation—Proclamation 10949—already banned entry from countries including Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Sudan, and Yemen. But the new, expanded list includes 36 additional countries such as Angola, Benin, Cambodia, Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Malawi, Niger, Syria, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. Many of these nations have only a modest number of students in the U.S., but several—like Nigeria, Ghana, Egypt, and Ethiopia—have longstanding educational ties and large student populations.

Even institutions such as the University of Pennsylvania have acknowledged disruptions. More than 200 of their international students and scholars are reportedly affected by the current travel bans. Administrators have warned students from targeted countries not to leave the U.S. for fear they won't be allowed to return. Legal clinics and international offices are overwhelmed, and some campuses are quietly reassessing how much they can rely on foreign enrollment moving forward.

For many universities, the timing couldn’t be worse. Shrinking domestic enrollment, financial shortfalls, and growing political hostility toward diversity, equity, and global engagement have already strained budgets and missions. International students, who often pay full tuition, have long been seen as a financial lifeline for underfunded institutions. Now, that lifeline is fraying—if not being intentionally cut.

The Trump administration’s framing of these changes centers on alleged concerns over visa overstays, document fraud, and national security. But critics argue the administration is using fear to further a nationalist agenda—one that openly targets Black and brown-majority nations, and casts suspicion on even the most vetted international applicants.

The damage to the reputation of American higher education may be incalculable. Canada, Australia, Germany, and the UK have already begun to benefit from the perception that the U.S. is hostile to foreign students. University partnerships, research initiatives, and global talent recruitment are all at risk. So too is the decades-long project of soft diplomacy that American education once represented.

And the fear is real. Stories of students being detained or deported without warning are now common in diaspora communities. International student applications to U.S. universities are dropping. Families abroad are beginning to steer their children away from what once was the gold standard of global education.

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to track these developments. With the stroke of a pen, thousands of academic journeys could be disrupted or ended altogether. For now, uncertainty hangs over a system that once claimed to be open to the world—and now looks increasingly closed off.

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/

Student Loans in the US: A Trillion Dollar Tragedy (Glen McGhee)

Adam Looney and Constantine Yannelis have reopened their research on the student loan mess with a new paper from Brookings titled "What went wrong with federal student loans?" The paper talks about what went tragically wrong with student loans in the United States from 2000 to 2020. 

Here are the key points:

1. More people started going to college, especially those who didn't have a lot of money or whose parents didn't go to college. [See note below]
2. To pay for college, many of these new students had to borrow money from the government through student loans.
3. A lot of these new students went to for-profit schools. These are schools that are run like businesses to make money, unlike regular public or non-profit colleges.
4. The problem is that many of these for-profit schools didn't provide a good education. Their students often didn't graduate or couldn't find good jobs after finishing school.
5. Because these students couldn't get good jobs, they had trouble paying back their loans. This caused a big problem for the government and the students.




Now, let's look at Figure 3 Panel B:
This graph shows how many first-generation college students (students whose parents didn't go to college) enrolled in different types of schools. The schools are grouped by how well their students could repay loans. The red line at the bottom represents the best schools - where students usually paid back their loans easily. You can see this line barely goes up over time. The dark blue line at the top represents the worst schools - where students had the most trouble paying back loans. This line goes way up, especially after 2000.

What this means is that a lot of first-generation students, who often didn't have much money to begin with, ended up at the schools where they were least likely to succeed and most likely to have trouble with their loans.

The for-profit schools took advantage of this situation. They aggressively recruited these students, knowing they could get money from government loans. But they didn't focus on giving students a good education or helping them get jobs. Instead, they just wanted to make money for themselves.

This led to a big increase in student debt problems, especially for students who were already at a disadvantage.

Note: This statement refers to trends in college enrollment that occurred in the early 2000s through about 2012. Let me explain the reasons behind this trend and whether it's still true today:

Reasons for Increased College Enrollment
1. Policy Changes: Starting in the late 1990s, policymakers weakened regulations that had previously constrained institutions from enrolling aid-dependent students[1]. This made it easier for more people to access federal student aid and enroll in college.
2. Economic Factors:
- The persistently high return to college education over the last several decades increased demand for higher education[1].
- During economic downturns like the 2001 recession and the Great Recession starting in 2007, the opportunity cost of enrollment was low due to weak labor markets[1].
3. Supply Expansion: The supply of programs surged, particularly open access institutions, online programs, and graduate programs[1]. Many of these new programs were targeted at non-traditional student populations.
4. Demographic Shifts: Between 1990 and 2010, the number of high school graduates increased by 34%[1].

Is it Still True?
The trend of increased college enrollment, especially among disadvantaged groups, has partially reversed since its peak:
1. Overall Enrollment: By 2020, total undergraduate enrollment had declined back to near its level in 2000[1].
2. Demographic Changes:
- Black undergraduate enrollment in 2020 remains only modestly higher than in 2000 - about 10% greater[1].
- White undergraduate enrollment in 2020 was below its level in 2000[1].
- Hispanic enrollment almost doubled between 2000 and 2020[1].
3. First-Generation Students: While 60% of postsecondary students were first-generation in 2000, this share declined to 56% in 2020[1].
4. For-Profit Sector: Enrollment at for-profit institutions, which had surged between 2000 and 2012, has since declined significantly[1].

In summary, while there was a significant increase in college enrollment, especially among disadvantaged groups, from 2000 to 2012, this trend has partially reversed in recent years. However, some changes, like increased Hispanic enrollment, have persisted. The overall landscape of higher education enrollment continues to evolve, influenced by economic conditions, policy changes, and demographic shifts.

Citations:
[1] https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/238393/f60f1373-2266-45ed-8960-6656ba110b38/paste.txt
[2] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/first-generation-college-students-face-unique-challenges/
[3] https://www.capturehighered.com/client-blog/landscape-in-flux-2024-enrollment-trends/
[4] https://medicat.com/why-first-gen-college-students-need-extra-support/
[5] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/05/23/pew-study-finds-more-poor-students-attending-college
[6] https://www.forbes.com/advisor/education/online-colleges/first-generation-college-students-by-state/
[7] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cpb/college-enrollment-rate

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.

The Brown University Killing, the Educated Underclass, and the Politics of Control

When a killing becomes associated with an elite institution such as Brown University, the public narrative hardens quickly. The event is framed as an unforeseeable rupture—either the product of individual pathology or evidence that universities have failed to control dangerous people in their midst. Missing from both accounts is a deeper examination of how elite higher education produces an educated underclass, how mental illness is managed rather than treated, how international students are uniquely exposed to risk, and how mass surveillance and reporting regimes increasingly substitute for care.

Elite universities project an image of abundance: intellectual freedom, global opportunity, and moral seriousness. Yet beneath that image lies a population living with chronic insecurity. Graduate students, adjuncts, postdoctoral researchers, and international students occupy a paradoxical position—highly educated, institutionally dependent, and structurally disposable. They are central to the university’s labor model and global prestige, yet peripheral to its safety nets and decision-making structures.

Mental illness must be addressed directly, but not in the reductive way it is often invoked after violence occurs. Campus mental health systems are overwhelmed, under-resourced, and shaped by liability concerns rather than therapeutic commitments. Students in severe psychological distress frequently encounter long waitlists, fragmented care, or administrative responses that blur the line between support and discipline. Crisis is managed, not resolved.

For international students, these failures are magnified. Visa status is typically contingent on continuous enrollment and academic performance. A mental health crisis can threaten not only a student’s education but their legal right to remain in the country. Seeking help may carry perceived—or real—risks: loss of funding, forced leaves of absence, housing instability, or immigration consequences. Cultural stigma, racism, language barriers, and social isolation further discourage engagement with already inadequate systems.

Rather than expanding care, universities have increasingly expanded surveillance. Elite campuses now operate dense ecosystems of monitoring: security cameras, access controls, data analytics, behavioral intervention teams, and anonymous “concerned citizen” tip lines. These systems are justified as preventative safety measures, but they often function as tools of social control. “Concerning behavior” is deliberately undefined, allowing subjective judgments to trigger institutional scrutiny.

Such systems disproportionately affect those who already stand out—students who are foreign, mentally ill, socially isolated, or racially marginalized. For international students in particular, being flagged by a tip or threat assessment process can escalate rapidly, drawing in campus police, local law enforcement, or federal immigration authorities. Surveillance does not replace care; it displaces it.

In the aftermath of violence, political responses tend to reinforce this displacement. Donald Trump’s reactions to campus-related violence and crime have followed a consistent pattern: emphasis on “law and order,” denunciations of universities as irresponsible or ideologically corrupt, and calls for stronger policing, harsher penalties, and increased monitoring. Mental illness is often invoked rhetorically, but rarely accompanied by proposals for expanded treatment, housing stability, or protections for vulnerable students—especially non-citizens.

This framing matters. When elite campus violence is interpreted through a punitive lens, it legitimizes further surveillance, broader reporting mandates, and closer coordination between universities and law enforcement. It shifts responsibility away from institutional structures and onto individuals deemed dangerous or deviant. For foreign students and members of the educated underclass, this environment deepens fear and discourages help-seeking, even as pressure intensifies.

The concept of the educated underclass helps explain why these dynamics are so volatile. Contemporary higher education produces vast numbers of highly trained individuals for a shrinking set of secure positions. International students are recruited aggressively, charged high tuition, and celebrated as evidence of global prestige, yet offered limited pathways to stable employment or belonging. Universities benefit enormously from this arrangement while externalizing its human costs.

None of this excuses violence. Accountability is essential, and the suffering of victims must remain central. But focusing exclusively on individual blame—or on punitive political responses—allows institutions to preserve comforting myths about themselves. It obscures how structural precarity, untreated mental illness, immigration vulnerability, and surveillance-based governance interact in predictable ways.

What incidents connected to elite universities ultimately reveal is not merely individual failure, but institutional contradiction. Universities claim to value diversity while subjecting foreign students to heightened scrutiny. They speak the language of wellness while expanding systems of monitoring and reporting. Political leaders denounce campuses while endorsing the very control mechanisms that exacerbate isolation and distress.

Until universities invest seriously in mental health care, protect international students from cascading penalties, and confront the harms of surveillance-first approaches—and until political leaders move beyond carceral reflexes—elite campuses will remain places where suffering is managed rather than addressed. When that management fails, the consequences can be catastrophic.

---

Sources

American Psychiatric Association. Mental Health in College Students.
https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/college-students/mental-health-in-college

Eisenberg, D., et al. “Mental Health and Academic Success in College.” The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 2009.

Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage Books.

Institute of International Education. Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange.
https://opendoorsdata.org

Lipson, S. K., & Eisenberg, D. “Mental Health and Academic Attitudes and Expectations in University Populations.” Journal of Adolescent Health, 2018.

Monahan, Torin. Surveillance in the Time of Insecurity. Rutgers University Press.

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

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. SEVP Guidance for International Students.
https://www.ice.gov/sevis

Trump, Donald J. Public statements and campaign remarks on crime, universities, and law enforcement, 2016–2024.

Zuboff, Shoshana. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. PublicAffairs.

Madness on Campus: The Unseen Struggles of College Students

College campuses are often portrayed as vibrant places of learning, personal growth, and social exploration. For many, these years are full of excitement, new experiences, and the thrill of shaping one’s future. However, beneath the surface of campus life, a darker reality lurks—a reality that is rarely discussed but increasingly hard to ignore. The mental health struggles of college students have reached a crisis point, and the pressure to succeed academically, socially, and professionally is often pushing students to their breaking point. The “madness” on campus isn’t just about late-night study sessions or the intensity of competitive sports—it’s about the unseen battles many students are facing every day.

The Pressure Cooker of College Life

For today’s college students, the pressure to succeed is more intense than ever. In addition to excelling academically, students are expected to balance internships, extracurriculars, social lives, and the looming uncertainty of their futures. The fear of not measuring up, of failing to secure a job after graduation, or of not living up to parental expectations can be overwhelming. These pressures are compounded by financial burdens, the weight of student loans, and in many cases, the struggle to make ends meet while navigating the high cost of living.

While the modern college experience has evolved to include more support systems than in past generations, the demands placed on students have also grown exponentially. Many students find themselves caught in a cycle of stress and exhaustion, trying to juggle the high expectations placed upon them. Unfortunately, these expectations can be detrimental to their mental health, leading to feelings of inadequacy, anxiety, and depression.

The Silent Epidemic: Mental Health on Campus

According to recent surveys, mental health issues among college students have skyrocketed in the past decade. Anxiety, depression, and stress are at all-time highs, with more students reporting feeling overwhelmed and mentally exhausted. A 2023 study from the American College Health Association found that 60% of students felt “overwhelming” anxiety at some point during the previous year, and 40% reported feeling so depressed that it was difficult to function. Despite this, only a small percentage of students are receiving the mental health support they need.

The stigma surrounding mental health remains one of the biggest obstacles to seeking help. Students often feel they must appear “perfect” in order to meet academic and social expectations, and admitting to mental health struggles can feel like an admission of failure. As a result, many students suffer in silence, exacerbating their problems and making it harder to find a way out.

Campus resources, while they exist, are often overwhelmed. Counselors and therapists on many campuses are stretched thin, with waitlists sometimes extending for weeks. This leaves many students without the help they so desperately need. Additionally, the counseling services offered on many campuses are often seen as temporary fixes—band-aid solutions to much deeper, systemic issues that go unaddressed.

The Tragic Consequences of Ignored Struggles

The mental health crisis among college students is not just a matter of academic performance or emotional distress—it has life-and-death consequences. A growing number of tragic stories are emerging from campuses across the nation, with young people taking their own lives in response to their struggles. Suicide is now one of the leading causes of death among college-aged individuals, with an alarming number of students feeling they have no other option.

One heartbreaking example is Riley O’Neill, a talented swimmer at the University of Texas, whose death in 2020 shocked the college community. O’Neill, who had been struggling with depression and the overwhelming pressures of college life, took his own life after feeling isolated and unable to cope with his struggles. His death, like many others, brought attention to the unseen mental health crises occurring on campuses and underscored the urgent need for better mental health resources and support systems for students.

Stories like O’Neill’s are tragic reminders of the real, human toll of mental health struggles on campus. They should serve as a wake-up call for universities to reevaluate how they support their students and to prioritize mental health just as much as academic performance or career success.

Sexual Assault on Campus: An Overlooked Crisis

Another critical issue that often goes unaddressed is sexual assault on college campuses. According to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC), 1 in 5 women and 1 in 16 men experience sexual assault while in college. This staggering statistic highlights the reality that sexual violence is an endemic problem on many campuses across the country. Yet, many victims of assault feel isolated, shamed, or even responsible for the violence they’ve experienced. The trauma of sexual assault can have severe, long-lasting effects on mental health, including depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and suicidal thoughts.

Part of the reason sexual assault continues to be a pervasive issue on campuses is the culture of silence that surrounds it. Victims often feel afraid to come forward, either due to the fear of not being believed, the social stigma, or the complicated legal and institutional processes that often seem to favor the accused rather than the survivor. This fear can lead to underreporting, with many victims choosing to keep their trauma hidden. Additionally, some students may feel the pressure to remain silent due to concerns about their academic and social standing on campus.

It’s crucial that campuses provide safe, supportive environments for students who have experienced sexual assault. Universities must have clear policies and resources in place to support survivors—ranging from accessible counseling services to campus security that is trained to handle these cases with sensitivity and professionalism. Survivors of sexual violence deserve to feel heard, validated, and safe while navigating the aftermath of their experiences.

The Role of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in Campus Struggles

In addition to mental health challenges and sexual assault, substance abuse is another issue that is deeply intertwined with the campus experience. Alcohol and drug use are unfortunately common among college students, and for many, partying or experimenting with substances is viewed as an integral part of social life. However, for some, these substances become a coping mechanism for the stress, anxiety, and depression that they are grappling with.

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) reports that about 60% of full-time college students between the ages of 18 and 22 drink alcohol, with 40% engaging in binge drinking. Excessive alcohol consumption is often linked to risky behaviors, including unsafe sexual activity, physical injuries, and academic struggles. For students already dealing with mental health issues, alcohol can exacerbate feelings of depression and anxiety, creating a dangerous cycle of dependence and emotional turmoil.

Drugs, including prescription medication misuse, marijuana, and party drugs, are also prevalent on campuses. These substances may be used to self-medicate for anxiety or depression, or they may be part of a social trend. The consequences of substance abuse are severe, ranging from academic failure and legal issues to addiction and overdose. For students in crisis, turning to drugs and alcohol may feel like an escape, but it ultimately only deepens their problems.

Campuses need to take substance abuse seriously by offering programs that promote responsible drinking, early intervention for at-risk students, and support for those struggling with addiction. Universities must also be proactive in educating students about the dangers of alcohol and drug abuse, providing resources for students who may need help overcoming addiction, and ensuring that they have a clear path to recovery.

The Months After Graduation: A New Set of Pressures

For many students, the madness doesn’t end when they graduate. In fact, some may argue that it intensifies. The months following graduation bring a new set of challenges and anxieties. While some students quickly find jobs, others face the harsh reality of a competitive job market, uncertainty, and the pressure to establish themselves as successful adults.

Recent graduates often struggle with the transition from the structured environment of college to the ambiguity of the professional world. Many face the disappointment of job rejections or the discouragement of landing positions that don’t align with their degree or career aspirations. The search for meaningful work, combined with the financial strain of student loans, can lead to feelings of failure, depression, and isolation.

This period is especially challenging for students who may have expected to step into a job immediately after graduation or who lack a clear career path. The societal pressure to “have it all figured out” within the first few months of post-graduation life can exacerbate anxiety and self-doubt. Graduates are expected to succeed quickly, to climb the career ladder, and to live independently—yet many are struggling with the emotional fallout from the relentless pressure of college life and the overwhelming uncertainty of the future.

Moreover, the feeling of isolation can be particularly pronounced during this time. Students leave behind the community of friends and professors that supported them through college, and in the midst of job applications, networking, and interviews, they often find themselves feeling disconnected. The support systems that existed in college become harder to access, and many graduates feel like they’re navigating their post-college life alone.

A Call for Compassion and Understanding

The madness on campus isn’t just about the chaos of late-night cramming sessions or the excitement of sports games. It’s about the unseen mental health struggles that affect so many students every day. It’s about creating a system that values students as whole individuals, not just as future professionals or academic performers.

In the face of this crisis, it is imperative that colleges and universities act now. By prioritizing mental health, fostering a culture of compassion, and offering the resources and support that students need, we can ensure that the madness on campus transforms from a chaotic burden to an environment of healing, growth, and well-being. The future of higher education must be one where students are supported in every sense—academically, socially, and emotionally. Only then will we be able to protect our students from the madness that too often consumes them.

Resources for Students Struggling with Mental Health, Sexual Assault, and Substance Abuse:

If you or someone you know is struggling with any of the following issues, here are some resources to reach out to:

• National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 1-800-273-TALK (1-800-273-8255) – Available 24/7 for confidential support.

• Crisis Text Line: Text HOME to 741741 – Free, 24/7 text support for those in crisis.

• National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC): www.nsvrc.org – Offers resources and support for sexual assault survivors.

• RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network): 1-800-656-HOPE (4673) – National sexual assault hotline offering confidential support and resources.

• Alcoholics Anonymous (AA): www.aa.org – Provides support for individuals struggling with alcohol addiction.

• National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA): www.drugabuse.gov – Provides resources for students dealing with substance abuse issues.

These resources are here to help students navigate the challenges of mental health, sexual violence, and substance abuse during and after their college years. Don’t be afraid to ask for help—it’s a critical step in finding support and healing.