Modeling civil unrest in the United States: some historical cases (Bryan Alexander*)

[Editor's note: This essay first appeared at BryanAlexander.org on September 6, 2022]

I’ve been modeling potential civil unrest in the US for a while, as some of you know (in terms of polycrisis, neonationalism, recent polls, after Trump, the 2020 election, 2018-2019, the 2016 election, egging on fears, and Sinclair Lewis). One way of doing this futuring work is by drawing on historical examples. History does not repeat, but some relevant  historical events can give us some rough ideas of how insurrections/civil war/rebellions/secession/etc. might play out.  At the least they give us examples to think with.

Today I wanted to offer a group of these examples, drawn from the past few generations, which might be useful.  For each one I’ll offer a very brief introduction, then explore how something similar might play out in the modern American setting.

One caveat: what follows are sketches of history, not serious historiography. Each one is way too short, and you should really dive into each on your own, including in comments. They are samples and summaries to stir your imaginations and investigations.

Another caveat. For these examples/models I assume a few details:

1. Trump (and DeSantis, the most likely Trump successor now) live and keep doing their thing for at least a few years.
2. Civil unrest happens, to some degree.
3. Time horizon: medium term, the next 5 years, or so.

The future can easily invalidate #s 1 and 2.  While Trump often appears in rude health and, in American style, is rich enough to pay for top notch medical care, he also has poor health habits and is nearing 80.  He or DeSantis could, of course, be killed, either in accidents or by the time-honored American tradition of assassination.  As for my second assumption, we haven’t seen much unrest over the past five years, despite my forecasts.  We might not experience anything of the kind – and should hope to be so fortunate.

One last bit of throat-clearing: there are other historical examples we can draw from, especially on the global stage.  I have been working on others, but wanted to get some out there now. I’d love to hear your own historical ideas.

Onward:

THE YEARS OF LEAD Italy endured a low grade civil conflict starting in the 1960s. Various extreme right and left groups targeted each other, the government, civil society, and civilians with bombings, kidnapping, robberies, and assassinations. The extreme right’s goal was the notorious “strategy of tension“: to scare people with terror enough that they would accept a reactionary government. The left’s strategy: to mobilize the population enough to kick off a left-wing revolution. Both used violence and terror as risky but sometimes successful recruiting tools, as well as for resource-gathering (cf bank robberies). Violence and terror also kept the cycle going by instilling the desire for revenge in survivors, friends, family, and witnesses.

The 1980 Bologna railway massacre.

How might this apply to the United States? It is not difficult to foresee some extreme right-wing groups (3%ers, Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, etc) increasing their violent acts and becoming more ambitious. One established American precedent is The Order, a hard-right racist fringe outfit which conducted bank robberies and at least one assassination in the mid-1980s.  Following the Italian example, not to mention the action of some Republicans around the January 6th event, we would envision some politicians allying themselves with these fringe activists to varying degrees of secrecy or openness, for a shared cause and/or mutual benefit.

I’m not sure if there will be any such corresponding action on the extreme left, since so many are wedded to nonviolent action. But we could see such organizing happen if a group feels right-wing dangers are dire enough and if they are willing to obtain the necessary tools.  Perhaps right wing attacks will spur retaliation. Or maybe some will see their struggle as so fundamental to humanity that they must risk extreme action (cf the classic “if you had a time machine, would you travel to the 1920s and murder Hitler?” prompt).

Recall that in the Italian case the activists were very small in number. The Red Brigades numbered a few hundred out of a nation with circa 50 million people. The United States, in contrast, numbers nearly 330 million and is very well supplied with weaponry.

Recall, too, that in Italy’s Years of Lead neither side succeeded in taking over the government, even after kidnapping and killing a former prime minister.

CHINA’S CULTURAL REVOLUTION From 1966 to 1976 political chaos engulfed the People’s Republic of China. Chairman Mao, having lost a great deal of power due to the horrific failure of his Great Leap Forward, launched a political gamble to rebuild his leadership. The story is complex and not easy to summarize, but it took the broad form of a revolution from above, which developed into widespread unrest to the level of civil war.  Mao used national, regional, local, and cultural supporters to provoke political instability while building up a Stalin-level cult of personality.  To do this Mao and his allies ran huge propaganda campaigns, created new political-military units out of teenagers, spurred endless rounds of local political fighting (hence struggle sessions and escalating local violence), and purged leaders across the system, along with preparing the nation for war with the Soviet Union, and more.

(I recommend Frank Dikötter’s The Cultural Revolution: A People’s History, 1962—1976. The complexity of this story is immense, and its recency means it’s difficult to get perspective and documents.)

How might this play out in the United States?  Obviously the American situation is very different.  Contemporary America is a world leader and is neoliberal in ideology, as opposed to China’s developing nation status during these events, not to mention being a communist state. However, we could imagine a right wing American leader, such as Trump, applying some of Mao’s practices if he wins the 2024 presidential election. Imagine him authorizing various local groups (militias, friendly state governments, local or state police) and federal agencies to go after people he doesn’t like (liberal school boards, tech companies, whatever Trump thinks Antifa is). Trump (or DeSantis) could use federal powers to crack down on anyone he doesn’t like, such as sending troops to deep blue cities, increasing digital surveillance, or denying resources. Trump (or DeSantis) could also follow Mao in urging repeatedly updated political opinions, talking up foreign war to scare people at home, calling out domestic enemies, and generally building up a cult of personality.

Obviously there are limits to this analogy. Trump is no ideologue like Mao was; I’m not sure what a Little Red Book analog might be.  Further, today’s GOP counts economic growth as a major, even leading achievement, while a Cultural Revolution level of chaos would undermine that.

One thing to keep in mind: Mao succeeded, at least in terms of his drive to rebuild his own power. He lived the last years of his life in supreme authority, albeit in declining health, after dismantling some of his support structures.

THE DESTRUCTION OF YUGOSLAVIA In the 1990s this nation tore itself apart, as a nationalist party tried to seize and expand control over the whole republic, and as different sub-nations sought to secede. A powerful national army proved a major power source for the Serb hardliners, as did militias. Republics generated their own forces, including irregular militias. Violence escalated in cycles of vengeance and deliberately inflicted terror. Republics exited the federation while the war grew in complexity and horror.  Other nations intervened, eventually establishing a shaky peace – followed by more conflicts and more unstable settlements.

Bosnia’s Stary Most (Old Bridge) over the Neretva River, rebuilt after being shattered in the war.

What vision for American conflict does the destruction of Yugoslavia present?  This is a more extreme model than the first two, but it could play out in several ways. imagine if Trump or DeSantis wins the White House and cracks down much harder than in the Mao model. Such suppression, surveillance, and violence provokes resistance at the state and city level. Democrats/liberals/the left attempt to secede in some way, such as declaring local autonomy from the Republican administration. They could organize self-defense forces at scale. This could spark an escalated federal crackdown. Any violence would drive all sides to further organization and action, and the nation spirals into civil war.

Alternatively, we could imagine the reverse, with a Democratic election victory and the Trump/reactionary right treating the winner as a tyrant. The latter could attempt to secede at the city, state, and/or regional level. They could organizing violence at various levels, from lone activists to militias or suborned local police, aimed against federal forces or locals perceived as aligned with them. The White House follows Lincoln in 1861 and responds with greater force. The civil war spiral kicks off.

Once more, there are obvious differences between the United States in the 2020s and post-Tito Yugoslavia. As with the Chinese comparison, America is not a communist state.  The USA is also more powerful geopolitically, not at the point of having foreign forces intervene and force settlements.  There are not clear-cut mixtures of ethnic, religious, and linguistic divides; the American situation is more complex.  Yet ethnic cleansing, should it occur, might take different forms, such as racial mass murder.

---

Why these historical examples out of all others?

First off, I was looking for situations that were as close to the present as possible.  That makes the comparisons less removed than, say, examples from Europe in the 1600s.  These histories are still distant from our present in key ways.  The contemporary internet, for example, could prove a powerful tool in any actor’s arsenal. The experience and impact of COVID-19 might inflect any such future history in ways quite different from our examples.

Second, for each one I began by isolating present-day factors which could drive civil unrest in the United States. Looking at dueling small groups in Portland, Oregon and the group which rioted in the US Capitol brought to mind the fierce, committed extremists of modern Italy. Considering Trump’s cult of personality, I looked for contemporary examples.  North Korea offers one, as does Italy’s Berlusconi, but not with the deliberate cultivation of chaos represented by Mao’s top-down revolution. Considering secession presents several alternatives, like Czechoslovakia’s split or the Eritrean war, but former Yugoslavia has advantages: a larger number of factions, a late industrial economic base, and a mix of ideologies with other identities.

Again, these are sketches. There is a lot more to say about each of those stories. There are plenty of ways today’s American context differs from each. Plus I have a lot more research behind this, but don’t want to overwhelm in a single FB post. My goal is to get you all thinking and commenting, so have at it.

(Bologna bombing photo by Beppe Briguglio, Patrizia Pulga, Medardo Pedrini, Marco Vaccari – www.stragi.it/, CC BY-SA 3.0; Cultural Revolution photo from Wikipedia; Mostar’s Stary Most image from Wikipedia)

**Bryan Alexander is an award–winning, internationally known futurist, researcher, writer, speaker, consultant, and teacher, working in the field of higher education’s future. He is currently a senior scholar at Georgetown University. Bryan's next book is Universities on Fire, to be published by Johns Hopkins University Press. This article was originally published at BryanAlexander.org.

Democratic Protests on Campus: Modeling the Better World We Seek (Annelise Orleck)

As an aging college professor, I found myself in a surprising position on the evening of May 1: face down in the grass of the Dartmouth College Green, with a heavily armored riot policeman kneeling on my lower back, and three others holding me immobile. Police wrenched my arms painfully behind me as they roughly tightened plastic zip ties on my wrist that cut sharply into my skin. “You’re hurting me,” I cried. “Please stop.”

I found myself croaking the words that I have heard so many victims of police brutality say before me: “I can’t breathe.” One of the officers growled at me, “You can talk. You can breathe.” I thrashed and gasped for air, while they threatened to charge me with resisting arrest, then pulled me up hard to my feet and pushed me toward a college van that the administration had provided police to facilitate the only mass arrests I have seen in my thirty-four years of teaching at Dartmouth.

Like many colleges and universities, after student encampments spread across the country calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and for divestment from companies that profit from Israel’s war, Dartmouth had banned tents on the Green. College policy violations don’t usually result in arrests, so Dartmouth chose to press charges against protesters for “criminal trespass.” As a recent court order made clear, “the State arrested each named defendant at Dartmouth College’s behest.”

When New Hampshire riot police arrived, there were ten students sitting quietly in five tents, surrounded by maybe 150 supporters, who had linked arms around them. It was a notably diverse protest, with Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Buddhist faith communities involved.

Over the years, there have been myriad peaceful student-led protests on the Dartmouth Green: to support campus unions, denounce sexual violence, call for divestment from fossil fuels and, before that, from companies that profited from South African apartheid. There have been rallies decrying racist statements in the famously conservative Dartmouth Review, calling for protection of undocumented students and opposing the incarceration of migrant children. 

Not since the late 1960s has Dartmouth called in riot police to assault protesters. Across the country, student protest has flourished largely unrestrained on college campuses since the disastrous 1970 crackdowns at Kent State in Ohio and Jackson State in Mississippi cost six students their lives. Why now are we seeing beatings and arrests of thousands? What moved college administrators this spring to make such a sharp change in how they handle peaceful student protest?

On the night of May 1, eighty nine people, myself included, were brutally arrested by phalanxes of heavily armed men in full body armor with helmets, truncheons, police dogs, and an armored vehicle. They descended alongside several local police forces, apparently called in by the college president and the Republican Governor of New Hampshire, Chris Sununu, who, hours earlier, had condemned campus protests for peace in Gaza as “100 percent antisemitic.”

A disproportionate number of those arrested that night were students of color. Their own experiences of state violence and discrimination have sensitized them to the suffering of Palestinians. Some of the arrested were, as I am, Jewish. This fact reflects the broader movement for a ceasefire in Gaza, which contains a disproportionate number of Jews who are moved by our religion’s call for tikkun olam (repair of the world) to denounce the genocide being committed in our names. The narrative promoted by politicians, many media pundits and supporters of Israel that these protests are “100 percent antisemitic” is, on my campus and many others, 100 percent untrue.

These violent crackdowns on campuses have been executed in the name of fighting antisemitism, defending free speech and keeping campuses “safe.” Dartmouth’s president and other college administrators have argued that calling riot police and arresting protesters is not an infringement of their rights to free expression. Rather, they insist, there are proper and improper ways to protest. “Occupations,” (the word they use to describe the tent encampments student protesters have used to evoke the situation in which more than a million displaced Gazans are now living,) infringe on the freedom of those who disagree with the protesters, making them uncomfortable and perhaps physically impeding them as they walk to or from classes or dorms. Some Jewish students who have suffered such discomfort have filed class action lawsuits against their universities for not protecting them.

Regardless of where you stand on whether campus officials should arrest peaceful protesters whose speech is making some other students feel uncomfortable, it is crucial to recognize that this new campaign against alleged anti-Semitism on campuses is not instigated by Jewish undergraduates who feel unsafe. It is well-funded and well-coordinated by powerful organizations with international reach – some of them funded to the tune of tens of millions of dollars by wealthy conservative donors from the U.S. and Israeli state coffers. The Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism and Policy,closely tied to Israel’s ruling Likud party, has provided research and data to members of Congress and state governments seeking to pass anti-Boycott Divestment and Sanctions laws. ISGAP research was also cited in Republican-led Congressional hearings investigating the so-called rise of “anti-semitism” on college campuses.

While ISGAP has concentrated on government agencies, many suits against colleges and universities have been litigated by the Louis D. Brandeis Center, founded in 2011 to combat civil rights violations against Jewish or Israeli students. The Brandeis Center usually sues for violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which forbids discrimination against or exclusion of anyone on the grounds of race, color or national origin in any program receiving federal funds. It has launched suits and legal complaints against Columbia, Harvard, University of Vermont, American University, Brooklyn College, Tufts, the University of Southern California and many other campuses. The Center has also promised to clean up “the morass of Middle Eastern studies,” mounting complaints against 129 Middle Eastern studies programs and centers on campuses.“When universities fail to comply with their legal obligations,” the Brandeis web site declares, “the center holds them accountable by taking legal action.”
(https://brandeiscenter.com/our-impact/)

Does all of this make politicians and college administrations tread carefully when students protest Israeli policy? You bet. The massive P.R. campaign to delegitimize criticism of Israel has also powerfully influenced mainstream media coverage of the protests. It has been not just relentlessly negative but wildly alarmist: one CNN anchor compared the campus protesters to Hitler youth on campuses in the 1930s; an MSNBC host compared the protesters to those who stormed the Capitol on January 6, arguing that campus protests are motivated only by hate.

As an historian of U.S. politics and social protest movements, it seems clear to me that we are in the grip of a national mass hysteria – not unlike the Red and Lavender Scares of the post-World War II years, when Hollywood actors, writers, New York schoolteachers and postal service workers, federal employees in Washington, D.C. were called in front of Congressional investigating committees and interrogated about past Communist Party sympathies or hidden gay lives.

In that era, Communists and gay people were painted as threatening to U.S. national security, because Communists were thought to want to give away secrets to our enemies and closeted gay people were seen as vulnerable to blackmail by foreign spies. Now it is critics of Israel’s war in Gaza who are seen as threats to U.S. national security, because they question long-standing agreements to supply billions in weapons annually to our primary ally in the Middle East. The U.S.-Israel relationship makes a few people (some of whom are on the Boards of Trustees of colleges and university campuses) a lot of money. 

In 2022, more than 2/3 of foreign investment in Israel came from the U.S. And Israel’s investments on the tech-heavy NASDAQ exchange are fourth in the world – smaller only than those of the U.S., Canada and China. Seen in that light, we can understand why student protesters’ calls for colleges and universities to divest from companies tied to Israel are being seen by Trustees and politicians alike as an existential threat. Dartmouth’s president is a director of the largest hedge fund on earth, headed by an Israeli tech guru and which invests heavily in Israeli technology.

Money is certainly part of what is fueling the bi-partisan response of politicians to this year’s wave of student protests. Politicians heavily funded by Israel’s premier lobbying firm – the American Israel Public Affairs Committee – are more than happy to conflate criticism of Israeli policy with anti-Semitism. Just as members of both parties in Congress -- from the 1940s through the early 60s -- feared being called soft on Communism, now politicians are weaponizing fears of a “new anti-Semitism” to further their own political agendas and line their pockets– bolstering military and technology contractors in Israel and the U.S. as they rile up voters in the 2024 election cycle. Fear sells. It generates both profits and votes.

That’s where the campaign of shock and awe came in. It all happened so quickly it was head spinning. 

On April 27, a student protest at Washington University in St. Louis resulted in 100 arrests. Steve Tamari, a Palestinian history professor from a nearby university, was thrown to the ground by police with such force that he suffered multiple broken ribs and a broken hand. His crime – filming the police action. 

On April 30, the New York Police Department made 300 arrests at Columbia and City College, barricading students into their dorm rooms, jailing protesters without water for 16 hours, holding two in solitary confinement. 

On May 2, the Los Angeles Police Department broke up an encampment of UCLA student protesters. For hours they watched as a right-wing mob (of self-proclaimed Zionists some of whom were armed thugs with ties to actual neo-Nazi and anti-LGBTQ groups) beat them, shot fireworks at them, then sprayed chemical irritants. When the LAPD did step in, officers shot unarmed peace protesters and faculty in the chest, face, arms and legs with “less than lethal” munitions. 

According to one volunteer medic, injured protesters were prevented from seeking much-needed hospital care until police had zip tied and arrested them.

The carnage continued at the University of Virginia where -- seven years earlier – actual neo-Nazis had marched with torches chanting Jews Will Not Replace Us. No police moved in to stop them. But, on May 4, 2024, Virginia riot police called in by UVA’s president pepper-sprayed and violently arrested peaceful protesters, destroying both tents and students’ belongings. 

Two and a half weeks later, on May 21, riot police used gas and chemical irritants to break up a Gaza ceasefire protest at the University of Michigan, on a part of campus that – like our Green - has hosted peaceful protests for decades without incident.

More than 3,100 were arrested at Gaza protests on college campuses from April to June 2024. ACLED (the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project) found that 97.4% of these protests were completely peaceful. Most of those arrested, myself included, were charged with criminal trespass – standing on the property of the institutions where they study and work. Interestingly, prosecutors from Manhattan to Austin have begun to drop charges against hundreds of protesters, for lack of evidence and – as one Indiana prosecutor put it – because the charges are “constitutionally dubious.” So far, New Hampshire has refused that route.

This theater of repression did what it was supposed to: bringing in riot police makes it seem that peaceful protest is actually threatening. And those who cracked down on the threat were lauded. In late June, Dartmouth was cited in the Chronicle of Higher Education as the only Ivy League campus not investigated by Congress for anti-Semitism. Our president continued to insist that she was acting in defense of free speech when she called armed police to arrest peaceful protesters.

Similarly, Republican congressional interrogators gloated over the resignations of the Presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania late last year. In mid-May, as riot police were flooding campuses to “clear” encampments, Elise Stefanik and Virginia Foxx called to Capitol Hill the Presidents of Northwestern University and Rutgers University, where administrators chose to negotiate rather than call police on their own students. The irony of a Jewish, pro-Israel university president Michael Schill, being dressed down by Republican House members with ties to actual white supremacist, homophobic, antisemitic and Islamophobic organizations, should not have been lost on anyone. But alas it was. Because that is how mass hysterias work.

Some of the loudest self-appointed Congressional defenders of American Jewry supported the January 6, 2021 assaults on Capitol Hill, where some protesters wore Camp Auschwitz shirts and others wore clothing with the logo 6MWE – which means 6 Million Wasn’t Enough. Those same members of Congress are now convening hearings to “investigate” how anti-Semitism is allegedly running rampant on college campuses and in K-12 schools.

There’s another piece to this perfect storm. Calling in armed state police to beat and jail teenage protesters may be seen as an alarming new stage in a 70-year-war by conservative politicians and intellectuals to “retake” higher education from “tenured radicals” who, allegedly, poison students’ minds by radicalizing them. Israel and its supporters have their agenda right now regarding campuses but so too do conservative educators and politicians.

The war on campus radicals can be traced at least as far back as William Buckley’s 1951 polemic, God and Man at Yale. It heated up with Roger Kimball’s 1990 screed, Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education. In 1994, Lynn Cheney, former head of the National Endowment for the Humanities, rejected the American History Standards she had commissioned (and which were worked on by actual American historians) as paying too much attention to “obscure” figures like Underground Railroad conductor Harriet Tubman and embarrassing topics like Red Scares and the KKK, and not enough to Confederate generals like Robert E. Lee or inventors like Orville and Wilbur Wright, the so-called fathers of aviation.

Those first battle cries were alarming at the time. They seem almost quaint now. The assault on education has intensified mightily since 2010, with the passage of book bans,bans on trans children competing in team sports and “divisive concepts” laws in more than 20 states that forbid teachers to discuss anything that makes students or, more likely, parents uncomfortable. In some districts this has meant a ban on teaching the history of slavery, systemic racism, sometimes the Holocaust, and certainly anything positive about LBGTQ people. Along with riot police on campus, have come new policies ending or drastically limiting Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs, and calls for an end to Middle Eastern Studies programs, Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Programs and more.

The bans on teaching the history of minority communities in the U.S. being waged in Florida, Texas and other states, go hand in hand with a spate of laws introduced since the racial justice protests of 2020 to criminalize protest in general. Teaching “divisive concepts” – conservative education officials assert, fuels protests. Post-9/11 anti-terrorism legislation is now being adapted so that all kinds of acts of civil disobedience–blocking pipelines, roads and bridges for example – can be prosecuted as terrorism and protesters can be harshly punished.

A series of steps now being considered in Washington, D.C. (and state capitols) will take us farther down that slippery slope. H.R. 6408, which has already passed the U.S. House and is awaiting consideration in the Senate, will give the Secretary of the Treasury unilateral power to terminate the tax-exempt status of any organization that provides “material support” – and that includes speech acts – to any terrorist organization.

This helps to explain why Columbia University suspended its campus chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voices for Peace. While there is zero evidence of any links between those groups and Hamas, Israeli government-funded campus surveillance agencies such as Canary Mission, along with the Anti-Defamation League and AIPAC, have repeatedly charged campus activists with providing aid and comfort to Hamas. That charge has been echoed ad infinitum by some vehemently pro-Israel faculty, students and administrators. 

If H.R. 6408 becomes law, we will undoubtedly see numerous colleges and universities suspending or banning student groups engaged in protest – not just of Israeli policy but also of U.S. foreign policy. Student protesters talk of a “Palestine exception” to free speech protections. But if these bills become law, protest for any reason will be subject to harsh punishment.

As part of the crackdown on recent calls for ceasefire in Gaza, Congress reauthorized an expanded version of Section 702 in April. This post-9/11 program of warrantless mass surveillance (including private communications) has already been used against Black Lives Matter activists and journalists. A proposal to reform Section 702 to require warrants for surveillance of U.S. citizens was defeated, with the ADL and other pro-Israel groups arguing that it would hamstring surveillance of “pro-Palestinian” movements.

There has been, without doubt, a rise in anti-Semitism in this country and around the world. But the most worrisome antisemitism is not coming from student protesters calling for an end to the horrific war in Gaza. In the age of Trump we have seen the rise of a vast network of violent white supremacist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic and homophobic groups. Frighteningly, most of them are armed to the teeth with actual weapons of war. Continued erosion of any kind of gun control makes them more dangerous than ever.

But I want to go one step farther and say that - like the Red Scare of the 1950s, the violent crackdown on student and faculty protest over the past few months is itself antisemitic. It has targeted Jews disproportionately, seeks to enforce through state violence, surveillance, and legislation, a particular political stance that all Jews must adhere to, and insists that if Jewish students and faculty ally with Muslims, Christians and Buddhists to oppose Israeli policy, we can all be charged with supporting terrorism.

It seeks to eviscerate the rich array of Jewish identities – which have always included people critical of Zionism. There is no room in this view for Jews whose identity is rooted in the long tradition of Jewish support for minority and worker rights, democratic pluralism and social justice.

It is ironic, even tragic, that campus protesters have been so demonized. Because, in some very real ways, the student encampments have modeled the new world that we must bring into existence if there is to be peace, in Israel/Palestine and beyond. At encampments across the country, Jewish and Muslim students have broken bread together, prayed together and shared insights and rituals from their religious traditions. These students—the very same ones we are targeting for arrest, beatings, suspensions and expulsions—may just be leading us toward new visions of what is possible. And, in these dark times, we need that if we are to move forward.

Col. Larry Wilkerson: Defeated Once, Israel Faces a Collapse It May Not Survive (Dialogue Works)

Dedicated to dialogue and peace, "Dialogue Works" is hosted by Nima Rostami Alkhorshid.

At Dialogue works, we believe there’s nothing more unstoppable than when people come together. This group’s mission is to create a global community of diverse individuals who will support, challenge, and inspire one another by providing a platform for Dialogue. We encourage you to share your knowledge, ask questions, participate in discussions, and become an integral part of this little community. Together we can become a better community and provide our members with a much better experience.

Wikipedia Community Documents Pro-Palestinian Protests on University and College Campuses

On April 22, 2024, the Wikipedia community began building an article titled 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses. The article includes a timeline on an estimated 120 campus protests and occupations that first started at Brown University in November 2023. On May 3, 2024, the list of pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in 2024 was created. 

As of May 6, more than 120 writers and editors have been involved in the Wikipedia project making more than 1100 edits. Editors are restricted to those who have shown a record of following with community rules. The article has received about 33,000 views so far. On May 3, the original article received a peak number of views, more than 10,000 for the day. The number of views of the second article, the list, continues to grow.  

Events Preceding the Student Protests 

Demonstrations which began in Europe and the US in October 2023 moved onto college campuses and expanded internationally.  

The protests are in response to tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians being killed and a half million facing famine.  The US media has generally avoided discussing the larger picture: of  US, European, and Arab nations over the last seven decades, and their role in the forced migration and containment of Palestinians in what has been termed an "open air prison" in Gaza.  US history includes similar elements of inhumanity and oppression. 

In January 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) said it is "plausible" that Tel Aviv was committing genocide in Gaza, ordering Israel to stop such acts and take measures to guarantee that humanitarian assistance is provided to civilians.  An order that Israel has rejected.

In March 2024, United Nations Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese said of the Israeli actions that “There are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating the commission of the crime of genocide…has been met.” 

Outcomes During and After the Demonstrations

In an attempt to quell the university and college protests in the US, more than 2,700 people have been arrested, to include students and university professors. An unknown number of students have also been expelled with limited due process. Media have been restricted access to protest sites.

Despite the documented horrors in Gaza, the US public has generally not supported the protests. And the US government continues to send arms, and money for arms, to Israel. Pro-Palestinian protesters have been labeled as radicals and antisemitic, even though many of them are Jewish. 

Student demands for divestment from Israel and from US arms makers have been discussed, but no material changes have occurred. Israel is planning to invade the city Rafah, which is likely to end in more deaths and suffering, but the US has mentioned no consequences if civilian body counts are high. Internationally, Israel is facing greater isolation, and its leaders are being accused of war crimes. 

Time will tell whether these articles will be reflective of a short-lived situation or part a larger social movement. The 76-year genocide in Palestine, the unintended consequences of the Jewish genocide during the 1930s and 1940s, will not be going away. 

For more than a century, student protests have been a part of US history and social consciousness, sometimes forgotten, but often reflecting progressive thinking (civil rights, peace, divestment from apartheid, fighting climate change).  

Related links:

A People's History of Higher Education in the US?

One Fascism or Two?: The Reemergence of "Fascism(s)" in US Higher Education

Corruption, Fraud and Scandal at Los Angeles Community College District, Part 2 (LACCD Whistleblower)

[Editor's note: The first installment of Corruption, Fraud and Scandal at Los Angeles Community College District is here.]

“HR has been weaponized against our faculty for speaking out and complaining about discrimination.” This was a public comment made by Los Angeles Community College District Academic Senate President Angela Echeverri at the March 2025 Meeting of the LACCD Board of Trustees.

Echeverri’s remarks were not isolated either and were echoed by Deborah Harrington (California Community Colleges’ Success Network Executive Director), “Our HR leadership is not living up to the standards that we deserve. Our members remain quite frustrated.” More reporting can be read in Pierce College student newspaper ‘The RoundUp’ and LACCD Youtube Live-Streamed meetings.

These accusations come three years after longtime administrator Annie G. Reed (Annie Goldman Reed) left her position as Omsbudsman/Associate Dean of Students at Los Angeles Valley College was promoted to Interim Dean of Employee and Labor Relations collecting an annual salary of $284,935.00 in pay and benefits in 2022 according to Transparent California last year of reporting.

A survey of public records including news articles, lawsuits, accreditation complaints, and emails to show that Annie G. Reed has a long history of this sort of behavior across multiple LACCD campuses – going back to the 2000s. 

In an October 27, 2010 article ‘Grade Grievances Give Students Voice’ by Lucas Thompson in ‘The Los Angeles Valley Star’ Annie G. Reed is quoted as cautioning students against using their rights to challenge unfair grades stating, “It’s worthwhile if a student really thinks they have the proof to forward with the process . . . It’s their right to, [but] we don’t encourage frivolous [cases], because that’s a waste of college resources.” 

The article further quoted disgraced ex-College President Sue Carleo who left the institution in 2013, with the College finances in the red and on Warning Status with the Accreditation Commission of Junior and Community Colleges. Carleo warned that students should simply view mis-grading as “Human Error.” (https://archive.org/details/cavgchm_002210/mode/2up? q=Annie+Reed+LAVC)

When the ACJCC placed Los Angeles Valley College on Accreditation Warning it cited multiple standards violations and specifically;

College Recommendation 5:

To fully meet the Standards, the college should ensure that records of complaints are routinely maintained as required by the Policy on Student and Public Complaints Against Institutions (Standards II.B.2, II.B.2.c, II.B.3.a, II.B.4)

This came after Annie G. Reed failed to have student records or complaints available for inspection to the visiting Accreditation Team.

 Three years later Reed was again in hot water when a student filed an Accreditation Complaint in June 2016, specifically documenting multiple faculty members in the Los Angeles Valley College Media Arts Department engaging in fraud and deceptive practices – supported by sixty pages of documentation.

The complaint further stated that Reed refused to facilitate student complaints as was her role and threatened action for ‘disrupting the peace of the campus’ by making complaints. This was followed by a second accreditation complaint by another student regarding the same issues and a student Facebook Group discussing issues.

Reed’s response was to suspend the first student running a smear campaign that he was potential active shooter citing the complaints he brought, suspend a thirty-year old single mother in the Facebook Group for Academic dishonesty after she forgot to have a college transcript from when she was eighteen-years old sent to LAVC, and then threatened the second student who brought an Accreditation Complaint for vandalizing school property.

[Below: Text exchange between LACCD students alleging that administrator Annie Reed created a smear campaign against them.]

Student 1 was suspended for a year (though not expelled by the Board of Trustees after investigation) a semester short of graduating. Student 1 would have earned six associate degrees and eight occupational certificates. Student 2, was ordered to pay a substantial amount of financial aid back to the college as “restitution.” Several months later, she was subjected to a reversal of hours by LAVC Grant Director Dan Watanabe in the Media Arts Department, for a campus job she worked and ordered to pay back several thousand dollars. Student 3 ended up going to Los Angeles City College to take final classes needed to graduate and was nearly refused graduation by Department Chair Eric Swelstad.

These actions also happened right before and after LAVC Media Arts Faculty Eric Swelstad, Chad Sustin, Adrian Castillo, Dan Watanabe, and LAVC President Erika Endrijonas lobbied the LACCD Board of Trustees to approve construction of a new Media Arts Building that was later reported by The Los Angeles Times to be a massive racketeering scheme – Aug 4, 2022, Teresa Watanabe, ‘Corruption and fraud beset long-delayed L.A. Valley college theater project, lawsuit alleges.’ (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-08-04/corruption-alleged-in-long delayed-la-valley-college-theater-project) 

These actions mirrored the treatment of a student who sued LAVC’s Media Arts Department in 2009, alleging the same type of fraud and misconduct by nearly all the same Department Faculty.

Enrique Caraveo vs Los Angeles Valley College, Eric Swelstad, Joseph D’Accurso, Arantxia Rodriguez, Dennis J. Reed among others. Filing Date: 05/18/2009 (https://unicourt.com/case/ca la2-enrique-caraveo-vs-los-angeles-valley-college-et-al-621337)

In that case, Caraveo stated:

46. When plaintiff complained about the above referenced matters, Swelstad and other Valley College officials retaliated against plaintiff by refusing to grant him a Certificate and creating a hostile learning environment for him in class.

47. On or around June 2007 plaintiff satisfied the requirements to get a Cinema Arts Production Certificate (“Certificate”) at Valley College.

54. On or about October 2008, Swelstad denied plaintiff the certificate via a letter even though plaintiff has fulfilled the requirements to get the Certificate.

55. On or about October 13, 2008, plaintiff notified Delahoussaye and Reed that plaintiff had fulfilled all requirements for the Certificate and that they should take care of the matter as soon as possible. On or about October 13, 2008, Yasmin Delahoussaye and Dennis Reed denied request.”

Dennis Reed, was at the time the Dean over the Media Arts Department and the husband of Annie G. Reed. Dennis Reed was later profiled in LAist Magazine on April 27, 2016 article ‘Jerk Driver Who Ran Cyclists Off Glendale Road Charged With Assault, Lying To Police’ (https:// laist.com/news/justice-delivered-almost)

 More to the point – Dennis Reed also oversaw a grant program at Los Angeles Valley College Media Arts Department known as IDEAS – Institute for Developing Entertainment Arts and Studies at LAVC. The Grant was run by Dan Watanabe. (https://archive.org/details/ cavgchm_002241/mode/2up?q=Annie+Reed+LAVC)

 Watanabe was also named in the Accreditation Complaint for Wage Theft, Improper use of funds and fraud in the successor grant ICT Doing What Matters, due to the college receiving Grant Money but immediately eliminating the curriculum the grant application said they would provide and like Caraveo’s complaint not providing in class training or labs. The complaints to Accreditation and the LACCD Personnel Commission by students also questioned the legitimacy of a number of professional experts, including Robert Reber – who was listed as both a ‘student worker’ and ‘professional expert’ in 2008. Student 1 further provided evidence to both that Dan Watanabe had asked him to falsify his resume claiming fictitious jobs and cited an employee in the LAVC Payroll office as being behind it (that employee immediately denied it and Student 1 refused).

Dennis Reed had also spent years lobbying for the approval of the VACC building – unsuccessfully.

In short, Annie G. Reed’s retaliation and cover-up in 2016, may have been to help realize her husband’s failed building project as well as preemptively shutdown any investigations or audits that might trigger further scrutiny regarding how the IDEAS Grant was administered under his time as area Dean.

Reed’s behavior of covering up abusive behavior towards members of the LACCD Community was also not limited to retaliation against students.

In 2017, then LACCD Board President Andra Hoffman accused former Board President Scott Svonkin of abusive behavior and demanded sanctions. According to an article in the Los Angeles Daily News, ‘LA Community College board postpones sanction hearing vote against former 4 president’ August 28, 2017, Annie G. Reed again inserted herself into the matter to cover-up for Svonkin.

“The allegations do not strike me as related to governing and seem best suited for mediation,” said Annie Reed, a district employee for 22 years and a representative of Teamsters Local 911. “I don’t ever recall a time, or a place, where he has treated his colleagues poorly.”

Others disagreed, including two former women board members who did not speak at the downtown meeting.

They said Hoffman’s critics — who they said weren’t present during the abuse — had a tendency to blame the victim, while ignoring Svonkin’s allegedly brusque treatment of employees.” (https://www.dailynews.com/2017/07/13/la-community-college-board-postpones-sanction hearing-vote-against-former-president/)

Her behavior is further documented in a series of lawsuits against the LACCD District. 

Filed October 03, 2024 Dr. Christiana Baskaran (Plaintiff), Linda Silva; Dr. Ruth Dela Cruz, Dr. Adriana Portugal, vs LACCD (including defendant Annie Reed). (https://trellis.law/doc/ 219882998/complaint-filed-by-dr-christiana-baskaran-plaintiff-linda-silva-plaintiff-dr-ruth-dela cruz-plaintiff-et-al-as-to-los-angeles-community-college-district-defendant-board-trustees-los angeles-community-college-district-defendant-los-angeles-c)

“[other defendants] Annie Reed to discriminate against female faculty and staff, refused to investigate immediately or to take preventative action. Then Defendants and EMPLOYER DEFENDANTS retaliated against PLAINTIFFS and others to try and prevent them from complaining to authorities. When PLAINTIFFS opposed these illegal practices, they continued to retaliate against them.”

24. As set forth herein, ALL Defendants were officers, agents. Defendants and directly or indirectly used or attempt to use their official authority or influence for the purpose of intimidating, threatening, coercing, commanding, or attempting to intimidate, threaten, coerce, or command PLAINTIFF and others for the purpose of interfering with the right of that person to disclose to an official agent matters within the scope of this article. EMPLOYER DEFENDANTS aided and abetted MARY GALLAGHER, ARMANDO RIVERA-FIGUEROA, ANN HAMILTON, JAMES LANCASTER, JOCELYN SIMPSON, JIM LANCASTER, ANNIE REED and Victoria Friedman District Complaince Officer, Genie-Sarceda-Magruder Interim Director Office for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, Rick Von Kolen to violate this statute.

28. . . .Dr Hamilton admitted to other illegal activity such as planting drugs on employees to destroy their reputation and get them fired. Dr Silva filed a grievance against Dean Hamilton to try and get her to stop the illegal activity, the union did nothing. 

32. Ms. Silva complained to Human Resources filed a title IX complaint, made a report to the police and was retaliated against.

Filed October 19, 2023 Sara Adams, An Individual VS California Institute of Technology, California Corporation. (https://trellis.law/case/23stcv25556/sara-adams-an-individual-vs california-institute-technology-california-corporation)

“21. On April 7, 2023, Mr. Wu continued to report the pay disparity to Annie Reed, Upon information and belief, Annie Reed is Caltech’s Employee and Organizational Development Consultant (Human Resources Department). 

22. Annie Reed spoke about the report of pay disparity to Ofelia Velazquez-Perez, Caltech’s Senior Director, Total Rewards and Director of Employee and Organizational Development (Employee Relations).”

Filed March 08, 2021, Mitra Hoshiar, an individual, Plaintiff, v. Los Angeles Community College District, (https://trellis.law/case/21stcv08950/mitra-hoshiar-vs-los-angeles-community college-district-an-unknown-entity)

“28. On December 3, 2015, PLAINTIFF then filed a discrimination complaint against Sheri Berger (“Berger”), VP of Academic Affairs, and Fernando Oleas (“Oleas”), Pierce Union President. During PLAINTIFF meeting with Dean Barbara Anderson (“Anderson”) at Anderson’s office on June 10, 2015, Berger and Oleas stopped by and started making remarks of PLAINTIFF’s accent for reading the graduates’ names on the ceremony with a non-American accent.

29. Thereafter, On December 11, 2015, in meeting with Dean Annie Reed in conjunction with the non-collegiality investigation Walsh, Union Grievance Rep and Oleas stopped by at PLAINTIFF’s office in order to prevent PLAINTIFF from Union Representation. They made PLAINTIFF to Barbara Anderson, whom was PLANTIFF’s chosen union rep and request for Anderson to not join the meeting because Walsh and Oleas had to choose who could be the union representation in the meeting.

30. Based on what had transpired on December 11, 2015, on December 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Whistleblower/Retaliation Complaint at the District’s Complaint at the District’s Compliance Office against Walsh, Oleas, and McKeever (department and union delegate), and other members of her department. No action was taken by the Compliance Office.

Annie G. Reed’s, current interim Dean of Labor and Employee Relations, has been involved in covering up wrongdoing in the Los Angeles Community College District for decades. Her targets have involved employees, students, faculty, and even a trustee. And so far has never been held accountable.

Multiple stories were published on newswire IndyBay, the news outlet branch of the San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center between 2023 and 2024. They were then scrubbed (along with other stories) over the weekend of May 18, 2025.

Recently, newly appointed Chancellor, Dr. Alberto J. Roman has been alerted to Ms. Reed’s disturbing history – it remains to be seen whether he will take corrective action, or continue to 6 keep around the same problematic individuals that resulted in his predecessor’s resignation after a vote of no-confidence by the LACCD Academic Senate.

(To be continued...) 

New Findings Highlight Borrowers' Student Loan Repayment Challenges and Impact on Key Milestones (Laurel Road)

[Editor's note: The Higher Education Inquirer is presenting this press release for information only. This is not an endorsement of the organizations mentioned in article.]

NEW YORK, Jan. 27, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- A new survey, The Student Debt Dilemma: The Impact on Financial Milestones, released today by Laurel Road, a digital banking platform of KeyBank with specialized offerings for healthcare and business professionals, in partnership with Luminary, a global professional education and networking platform, and conducted by Kantar, reveals the obstacles borrowers face in managing student loan repayment – from information overload to confidence gaps.

The survey of 1,714 U.S. adults found that 70% felt overwhelmed when navigating repayment options, with 76% of respondents experiencing an overload of information, underscoring the significant anxiety and confusion faced by borrowers. These findings underscore the impact of debt on milestone life events as well as the difficulty of navigating an intricate repayment system.

Challenges amid Regulatory Changes
Recent changes and fluctuating regulations in the federal student loan system have created ongoing uncertainty for borrowers navigating their repayment options. According to the survey, 82% of respondents aged 25 to 44 reported feeling "unsure what plans/options are right for me," demonstrating the ever-changing environment as a primary pain point.

Additionally, 58% of individuals in the combined 25-44 age group reported feeling moderately overwhelmed – a significantly higher percentage compared to the 45 and older age group (34.8%)– emphasizing the unique challenges younger borrowers face in making informed decisions.

Low Levels of Confidence in Repayment Strategies
Navigating student loan repayment is a complicated process, requiring borrowers to understand available options, conduct thorough research to identify loan management opportunities, and select the most appropriate repayment plan or forgiveness program.

According to the survey, 26% of respondents noted that they did not have a plan for managing their student loans, while 20% indicated they planned to use Federal Income-Driven Repayment, and 15% intended to pursue the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program.

Confidence is another major concern, as 61% of borrowers surveyed reported a lack of confidence in their repayment strategies while only 13% reported feeling confident in their approach.

"This study confirms everything we believed to be true relating to confusion and lack of confidence student loan borrowers face today. Information overload and ambiguity has left borrowers yearning to understand the repayment and forgiveness options available to them, and to receive this information in a clear, concise manner," said Alyssa Schaefer, General Manager and Chief Experience Officer at Laurel Road. "Laurel Road is at the forefront of helping borrowers gain their confidence by offering free consultations with student loan experts who can help them make informed decisions, navigate the complexities of repayment, and build the confidence needed to reach their financial goals – ultimately securing their financial futures."

Impact of Student Loans on Financial Futures
In addition to being difficult to navigate, the student loan landscape has the potential to largely affect borrowers' overall financial well-being and long-term goals. The survey revealed that student loan debt has delayed significant life milestones for respondents, with borrowers reporting the following impacts:

• 79% struggle to save for emergencies or retirement
• 75% are unable to invest for the future
• 52% are unable to purchase a home
• 35% are postponing starting a family

"Luminary has seen first-hand the impact of student loan debt on our Members, from a lack of understanding about available options to the affect it has on an individual's mental health due to stress, worry and anxiety, " said Luminary founder and CEO Cate Luzio. "While this isn't new information for us, given our longstanding partnership with Laurel Road, we felt this survey was necessary to demonstrate the real toll it's taking on people. As we prepare for a new administration in 2025, this is top of mind as we continue developing programming to educate and inform those affected."

Delays in life milestones not only affect individual wellbeing but also pose broader risks to economic stability and financial security. Through online resources and student loan consultations, borrowers can gain confidence in understanding and tackling student loan repayment and get on track for important financial milestones.

For additional results from this survey, visit http://laurelroad.com/resources/financial-survey-student-debt-dilemma/ 

Methodology
This survey was conducted online from September 30, 2024, to October 31, 2024 among 1,714 U.S. adults with either private or federal student loans, by Luminary and the Kantar Profiles Respondent Hub. The primary age group analyzed ranged from 25–44 years old, though responses were collected from ages 18–65+. The gender breakdown of the respondents was 47% male, 51% female, 2% non-binary, and 0.4% preferring not to answer. Statistical significance testing was completed between groups to ensure the results did not occur by chance. 

About Laurel Road
Laurel Road is a digital banking platform and brand of KeyBank that provides tailored offerings to support the financial wellbeing of healthcare and business professionals. Laurel Road's banking and lending solutions – including Checking and High Yield Savings accounts, Student Loan Forgiveness Counseling, Student Loan Refinancing, Mortgages, Personal Loans, and more – provide our members with a simplified, personalized experience that helps them better navigate their financial journey with ease.

Laurel Road has reimagined banking and financial management for physicians and dentists through Laurel Road for Doctors, a tailored digital experience made up of banking, insights, and exclusive benefits to provide the financial help and peace of mind they need through each career stage. In spring of 2022, Laurel Road also launched Loyalty Checking, the first checking account designed with nurses in mind, furthering the company's commitment to healthcare professionals. Visit www.laurelroad.com for more information.

About Luminary
Luminary is a global membership-based professional education and networking platform created to address and impact the systemic challenges faced by women and underrepresented communities across all industries and sectors, and through all phases of their professional journey. Founded in 2018 by former finance executive Cate Luzio, Luminary is a dynamic, gender-inclusive, multi-generational, and intersectional community focused on creating connection, collaboration, and change through global expert- and Member-led programming, as well as services, activations, content, and culture. In addition, Members have access to perks and amenities including a vast digital content library; a five-floor building in the heart of NoMad in New York City that is home to work and social spaces, including a rooftop restaurant; and entree to Luminary's international Partner Network of women-forward communities. Luminary continues to build its ecosystem of high-touch engagement for both individual and enterprise members and has grown to be a multimillion-dollar global B2C and B2B business with more than 15,000 members and over 100 enterprise members. In late 2023, the company acquired The Cru to add to its robust product offering, and in January 2025 announced its acquisition of Hey Mama.

Media Contact: laurelroadpr@kwtglobal.com

Coalition for Mutual Liberation at Cornell University

WHO WE ARE

The Coalition for Mutual Liberation (CML) is a broad-based coalition of over 40 organizations on Cornell University's Ithaca Campus and in the surrounding community. Many of these orgnizations are publicly members of CML; the others wish to remain anonymous.
 

COALITION MEMBERS

The Arab Graduate Student Association
Asian Pacific Americans for Action
The Basic Needs Coalition
Black Students United
The Buddhist Sangha
The Cadre Journal
Climate Justice Cornell
Cornell Progressives
Ithaca Ceasefire Now
Jewish Voice for Peace at Cornell
The Mass Education Campaign
The Muslim Educational and Cultural Association
El Movimiento Estudiantil Chicanx at de Aztlán
Native American and Indigenous Students at Cornell
The People’s Organizing Collective Cornell, United Students Against Sweatshops Local 3
The South Asian Council
Students for Justice in Palestine
Young Democratic Socialists of America

OUR MISSION

Our mission is to educate, empower, and organize our community to take action against imperialism, settler colonialism, and all other forms of oppression. Our struggles are deeply interconnected, and it is only through our collective resistance that we will achieve mutual liberation.

OUR FOCUS

Today, we join international humanitarian organizations, political leaders, scholars, activists, and most recently the state of South Africa incondemning Israel's genocide of the Palestinian people. We come together in solidarity with the people of Palestine in particular because Palestine is among the clearest manifestations of American economic and military hegemony—the force that perpetuates imperialism, racism, white supremacy, transphobia, homophobia, as well as religious- and gender-based violence across the world's historically exploited nations and populations.

DIVESTMENT DEMANDS

We find Cornell University complicit in the genocide of the Palestinian people through its endowment investments in weapons manufacturers and military technology developers, its corporate and institutional partnerships with the producers of these technologies, and its lack of screening procedures and transparency around these ties. Cornell must take immediate action to sever its ties with the US-backed Israeli siege on Palestine which has already left more than 30,000 Palestinians dead. We demand:

1. Divestment from any company complicit in genocide, apartheid, or systematic cruelty against children perpetrated against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, in accordance with Cornell's 2016 Standard to Guide Divestment Consideration. As outlined in Cornell's 2016 Standard to Guide Divestment Consideration, the Board of Trustees must consider divestment from companies whose actions constitute "genocide, apartheid, or systemic cruelty to children." By doing business with Israel as it conducts its genocide, responsibility for these three morally reprehensible actions fall on the shoulders of the following weapons companies: BAE Systems, Boeing, Elbit Systems, General Dynamics, L3Harris Technologies, Leonardo, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, RTX, and ThyssenKrupp. In order for Cornell to abide by its own divestment standards and precedents for divestment (in the cases of the Sudanese genocide and the fossil fuels industry), the university must immediately liquidate all of its holdings in the companies listed above and enact a moratorium on all investments in arms manufacturers that supply weapons, munitions, and other military supplies to Israel.

2. The termination of all corporate partnerships with companies complicit in the genocide, apartheid, or systematic cruelty towards children perpetrated against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Cornell currently maintains corporate partnerships with a number of weapons companies whose products have been used against civilians in Gaza. These companies include BAE Systems, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin. Cornell Systems Engineering also partners with RTX (Raytheon), which is described as being “an extended part of the Cornell Systems Engineering community.” Cornell’s partnerships with these weapons companies amounts to complicity in the genocide of the Palestinian people. We are therefore calling on Cornell University to sever their corporate partnerships with these companies as soon as possible. We call on Cornell University to begin this process immediately and to have fully dissolved these partnerships by the end of the 2024 calendar year.

3. A comprehensive ban on the research and development of any technologies used by the Israeli Offensive Forces at the Jacobs Cornell-Technion Institute in New York City. The Jacobs Technion-Cornell Institute, a partnership between Cornell University and the Israel Institute of Technology (Technion), is part of Cornell Tech, a campus for graduate research in New York City. Independently of Cornell Tech, Technion researches and develops geospatial, intelligence, and weapons technologies used by the Israeli Ministry of Defense. Cornell Tech’s publicly stated founding purpose is “to advance technology as a means to a better quality of life for all communities [...] around the world.” Its “Diversity and Inclusion” mission includes “[engaging] in research that promotes justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion” and “[educating and training] ethical technology leaders of the future.” In light of Technion’s numerous connections to Israel’s occupation and genocide in Palestine, Cornell Tech’s supposed commitment to ethical and just technological development rings hollow. We demand a comprehensive ban on the research and development of any technologies used by the Israel Offensive Forces at the Cornell Tech/Technion Campus in New York City.

As Israel continues its relentless genocide in Gaza and further militarizes its occupation of the West Bank, the world watches as Palestinians are displaced, starved, and killed every day. The horrors of Israel’s siege on Gaza are broadcast in full display across multiple news outlets and social media platforms, and yet, the American institutions that fuel this violence refuse to act.

Thirty years ago, when over fifty other universities across the country divested from South African apartheid, Cornell faltered in its commitment to humanity and never severed its ties with a state dependent on the perpetuation of horrific racial violence. Today, the global community once again stands at a crossroad—Cornell University has the opportunity to do what it couldn’t three decades ago.

Cornell University must make a choice: to toe the line drawn by a foreign nation and remain complicit in the genocide of the Palestinian people, or to establish itself as a leader among elite educational institutions by being the first to materially recognize the Palestinian right to life and dignity.

We envision a future for Cornell University that does not fund and partner with the corporate entities responsible for the decimation of an entire people, their cultural artifacts, and the land they inhabit. The Board of Trustees must have the courage and moral fortitude to cut ties with Israel’s unrelenting campaign of violence against Palestine so that Cornell may truly do the greatest good.

For more information about our divestment demands, the companies listed as divestment targets, Cornell's complicity in Israel's genocide against the Palestinian people, and Cornell's violation of its own standards, procedures, and values, see CML's full Divestment Report. 

DEMANDS FROM LIBERATED ZONE

Cornell students, staff, faculty, and community members join the cross-campus wave of organizers establishing liberated zones in solidarity with Gaza. The campers' ongoing act of nonviolent resistance will include teach-ins, art builds, and other activities to highlight the urgency with which Cornell must act in response to the Israeli government's genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. Students from across the globe have joined together to protest the genocide in Gaza during which the Israeli Offensive Forces have murdered over 34,000 Indigenous Palestinians in under seven months. Students are organizing in outrage that Palestinian universities have been obliterated with weapons funded and developed through Cornell University's partnerships and investments. Distinctly, the Cornell University Board of Trustees adopted a commitment in 2016 to divest from companies engaged in "genocide, apartheid, and systematic cruelty against children.” Cornell's failure to divest is not only a violation of the university's stated policies, but also an act of genocide denialism.

Cornell’s refusal to cut ties to Palestinian genocide reflects its history of profiteering from the violent dispossession of Indigenous Peoples across North America. Cornell is the largest beneficiary of the Morrill Act of 1862, which redistributed Indigenous land as public domain to states to establish and endow land-grant institutions. Through the dispossession, Cornell accrued nearly 1 million acres of land, some of which it sold for profit, and some to which it currently retains the rights. Today, Cornell showcases its land-grant status—its status as an institution supposedly dedicated to the promotion of practical disciplines such as agriculture, mining, and engineering—to signal its commitment to accessible higher education and mask its refusal to provide reparations or restitution to the 251 tribal nations affected by land-grant dispossession. Cornell's settler colonial project in the United States is the foundation for its settler colonial interests in Palestine. Through this encampment, students highlight Cornell's role in dispossession and genocide across the globe.

The encampment on the oldest commons on Cornell's campus invites all members of the community to support the students' demands that Cornell University:

1. Acknowledge its role in the national genocide of Indigenous Peoples through the Morrill Act and its sale of 977,909 acres of Indigenous land; return all mineral interests to Tribal Nations dispossessed by the Morrill Act; provide restitution for the dispossessed nations; provide restitution for the Cayuga Nation; establish an Indigenous Studies department; and return surplus land in New York state to the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, the Lenni Lenape, and their descendants who have been forced out of New York.

2. Annually disclose a comprehensive account of its endowment and land holdings, and divest from entities involved in “morally reprehensible activities,” in accordance with Cornell’s 2016 Standard to Guide Divestment Consideration.

3. End profit-generating partnerships, volunteer arrangements, and other significant corporate and academic affiliations with institutions involved in “morally reprehensible activities,” including but not limited to the dissolution of the Jacobs-Technion Cornell Institute and all other partnerships with the Technion Israel Institute of Technology.

4. Call for an unconditional, permanent ceasefire in Gaza.

5. Establish a Palestinian Studies program housed in the College of Arts and Sciences, along with an accredited minor that is available to all undergraduate and graduate students. Representatives from Cornell’s chapter of “Students for Justice in Palestine” and “Cornell Collective for Justice in Palestine” must serve on the committees that oversee the hiring of the program’s faculty.

6. Publicly acknowledge and protect anti-Zionist speech, viewpoints, and histories in both religious and academic contexts. Recognize the legitimate and historical claim that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.

7. Remove all police from campus, beginning with the elimination of police presence at demonstrations. Replace police with an emergency response team composed of healthcare workers and first responders trained in de-escalation. A majority of team members must be providers who share lived experiences and identities with Cornell’s diverse student body.

8. Ensure total legal and academic amnesty for all individuals involved with the Liberated Zone and related demonstrations.
 

POINTS OF UNITY

1. The principal contradiction of our world is that between the exploited nations and the exploiters in the imperial core: imperialism.

2. The underdevelopment of the exploited nations was and is the dialectical necessity for the development of the exploiters.

3. Capitalism has always been a global, racialized system—primitive accumulation could not have occurred without genocide, enslavement, and ecocide.

4.Imperialism creates a stratification that rewards some proletarians as settlers and/or citizens, thus forming a labor aristocracy.

5. The labor aristocracy’s wages and incorporation into the nation-state allow them to benefit from the exploitation of the low-waged labor of the exploited nations, intensifying imperialism in the form of unequal exchange.

6. Unequal exchange precludes the universality and internationalism of the proletariat, and hinders the solidarity of the “workers of the world”.

7. Imperialism manifests itself in a variety of other ways today, in sanctions regimes, indebtedness, military intervention, nuclear aggression, extractivism, and other forms.

8. Capitalism cannot be defeated globally while imperialism persists—without anti-imperialism, efforts at socialism in the exploiting nations can only produce social imperialism.

9. The obligation of revolutionaries today is to challenge imperialism by any means necessary. In the exploiting nations, that primarily means acting in solidarity with anti-imperialist movements in the exploited nations.

10. Solidarity cannot be simply symbolic—it must be material; it must be something we can hold in our hands.
 

CONTACT US
Information address: cml.information@proton.me
Press address: cml.press@proton.me

Trump's War on Reality

The second Trump administration has unleashed a coordinated assault on reality itself—an effort that extends far beyond policy disagreements into the realm of deliberate gaslighting. Agency by agency, Trump’s lieutenants are reshaping facts, science, and language to consolidate power. Many of these figures, despite their populist rhetoric, come from elite universities, corporate boardrooms, or dynastic wealth. Their campaign is not just about dismantling government—it’s about erasing the ground truth that ordinary people rely on.

Department of State → Department of War

One of the starkest shifts has been renaming the State Department the “Department of War.” This rhetorical change signals the administration’s embrace of permanent conflict as strategy. Secretary Pete Hegseth, a Princeton graduate and former hedge fund executive, embodies the contradiction: Ivy League polish combined with cable-news bravado. Under his watch, diplomacy is downgraded, alliances undermined, and propaganda elevated to policy.

Department of Defense

The Pentagon has been retooled into a megaphone for Trump’s narrative that America is perpetually under siege. Despite the promise of “America First,” decisions consistently empower China and Russia by destabilizing traditional alliances. The irony: many of the architects of this policy cut their teeth at elite think tanks funded by the same defense contractors now profiting from chaos.

Department of Education

Trump’s appointees have doubled down on dismantling federal oversight, echoing the administration’s hostility to “woke indoctrination.” Yet the leaders spearheading this push often come from private prep schools and elite universities themselves. They know the value of credentialism for their own children, while stripping protections and opportunities from working families.

Department of Justice

Justice has been weaponized into a tool of disinformation. Elite law school alumni now run campaigns against “deep state” prosecutors, while simultaneously eroding safeguards against corruption. The result is a justice system where truth is malleable, determined not by evidence but by loyalty.

Department of Health and Human Services

Public health has been subsumed into culture war theatrics. Scientific consensus on climate, vaccines, and long-term health research is dismissed as partisan propaganda. Yet many of the leaders driving this narrative hail from institutions like Harvard and Stanford, where they once benefited from cutting-edge science, they now ridicule.

Environmental Protection Agency

The EPA has become the Environmental Pollution Agency, rolling back rules while gaslighting the public with claims of “cleaner air than ever.” Appointees often come directly from corporate law firms representing Big Oil and Big Coal, cloaking extractive capitalism in the language of freedom.

Department of Labor

Workers are told they are winning even as wages stagnate and union protections collapse. The elites orchestrating this rollback frequently hold MBAs from Wharton or Harvard Business School. They speak the language of “opportunity” while overseeing the erosion of worker rights and benefits.

Department of Homeland Security

Reality itself is policed here, where dissent is rebranded as domestic extremism. Elite operatives with ties to intelligence contractors enforce surveillance on ordinary Americans, while elite families enjoy immunity from scrutiny.

---

The Elite Architecture of Gaslighting

What unites these agencies is not just Trump’s directives, but the pedigree of the people carrying them out. Far from being the populist outsiders they claim to be, many hail from Ivy League schools, white-shoe law firms, or Fortune 500 boardrooms. They weaponize their privilege to convince the public that up is down, war is peace and lies are truth.

The war on reality is not a sideshow—it is the central project of this administration. For elites, it is a way to entrench their power. For the rest of us, it means living in a hall of mirrors where truth is constantly rewritten, and democracy itself hangs in the balance.

---

Sources

• New York Times, Trump’s Cabinet and Their Elite Connections

• Washington Post, How Trump Loyalists Are Reshaping Federal Agencies

• Politico, The Ivy League Populists of Trump’s Inner Circle

• ProPublica, Trump Administration’s Conflicts of Interest

• Brookings Institution, Trump’s Assault on the Administrative State

• Center for American Progress, Gaslighting the Public: Trump’s War on Facts

Winter in America (Gil Scott Heron)

From the Indians who welcomed the pilgrims
And to the buffalo who once ruled the plains
Like the vultures
Circling beneath the dark clouds
Looking for the rain
Hey, they've been looking for the rain

Just like the cities staggered on the coastline
Livin' in a nation that just can't much more
Like the forest they buried beneath the highway
Never had a chance to grow
Well, they never had a chance to grow

And now it's winter
Come on, sing if you know the words
Seemed like winter in America
A time when all of the healers done been killed
Or been betrayed, say
People know that something's wrong
Everybody oughta know winter
Seemed like winter in America

The truth is there ain't nobody fighting
Because, well nobody knows what to save
Brother, save your soul
Lord knows it's winter in America
The Constitution, a noble piece of paper
With free society

Well, they struggled but they died in vain
And now democracy is ragtime on the corners
On the cord, hoping it'd rain
Yes, he's been a-hopin' for some rain
But it just don't look like rain

And I see the robins, yeah, perched in barren tree tops
Watching last-ditch racists marching across the floor
And like the peace sign that filtered in our dreams
That never had a chance to grow
Yeah, they never had a chance to grow

Somebody want to go tell them it's winter
It's cold, it's like winter in America
Time when all the healers, people who have done been killed
Or been betrayed, say
But the people know there's something wrong
Hey, it's winter
It seems like winter in America

The truth is there ain't nobody fighting
'Cause, well nobody knows what to save
Aw, sister save your babies
Yes, winter in America

I said hey, hey, hey
It's winter

It's cold, it's like winter in America
Time when all the healers, brothers who have done been killed
And put them in jail, say
People know there's something wrong
Something wrong with winter
It feels like winter in America

The truth is there ain't nobody fighting because
Well nobody knows what to save
Yes and the truth is
There's nobody fighting, nobody fighting
Nobody knows, nobody knows what to do, what to do
The truth is there ain't nobody fighting because
Nobody knows what to save

Presidents, Trustees, Donors, and the Machinery of Genocide: Higher Education’s Complicity in War and Fossil Capital

In a time of global climate catastrophe, endless war, and mounting social unrest, the American higher education system—ostensibly a sanctuary of ethics and enlightenment—has shown its allegiance not to peace or justice, but to power. The presidents of elite universities, their boards of trustees, and their wealthiest donors now stand exposed as key cogs in a machinery that profits from genocide, fossil fuel destruction, and war profiteering. They are not simply bystanders to global injustice; they are its enablers and its beneficiaries.

The Role of University Presidents

University presidents, many with backgrounds in business or law rather than academia, have become institutional CEOs rather than moral stewards. Their silence—or worse, their euphemistic statements—in the face of war crimes and environmental devastation reveals not neutrality but complicity. As students protest U.S.-backed wars and apartheid policies abroad, these leaders respond not with dialogue, but with surveillance, mass arrests, and the suppression of speech.

The university president today is less a defender of academic freedom and more a manager of reputational risk. In the face of genocide in Gaza or mass civilian deaths in Yemen, many presidents remain silent or offer carefully crafted non-statements that betray the moral bankruptcy at the heart of neoliberal academia. Their true constituents are not students or faculty—but the donors and trustees who demand institutional alignment with corporate and political interests.

Trustees as Enforcers of the Status Quo

University trustees are often drawn from the ruling class: hedge fund managers, defense contractors, fossil fuel executives, and venture capitalists. These are not individuals selected for their commitment to education or the common good. They are chosen precisely because of their wealth and their proximity to power.

Their presence on governing boards ensures that universities continue to invest in private equity, fossil fuels, and weapons manufacturers. They help enforce austerity for faculty and students while protecting multi-million-dollar endowments from divestment campaigns. When students call for cutting ties with Israeli defense contractors or fossil fuel companies, it is trustees who push back the hardest.

Donors as Puppeteers

Donors exert a quiet but overwhelming influence on policy, curriculum, and campus climate. Mega-donors like Stephen Schwarzman, Kenneth Griffin, and Leonard Lauder have given hundreds of millions to name buildings, shape public discourse, and suppress dissent. Often, these donations come with invisible strings—ideological conditions that shift the priorities of entire departments or shut down lines of critical inquiry.

In the case of fossil fuels, large gifts from oil and gas interests help sustain "energy centers" at top institutions, which in turn push pro-industry research and obstruct climate activism. In terms of war, donations from defense industry executives or foreign governments with poor human rights records ensure a steady normalization of militarism on campus.

Even genocide, once a line that no institution dared cross, is now rendered a matter of "complex geopolitics" by the same donors who pour money into think tanks and academic centers that sanitize ethnic cleansing and apartheid.

Genocide and the Academy

It is no longer possible to ignore the role of elite institutions in justifying or supporting genocidal policies. When universities accept grants and partnerships with governments or corporations involved in mass displacement, ethnic cleansing, or indiscriminate bombing, they become accomplices in atrocity.

During the ongoing Israeli siege of Gaza, for example, several major U.S. universities have contracts or investments tied to Israeli defense firms or U.S. arms manufacturers whose weapons are used against civilians. Students calling for divestment face violent repression, police brutality, and academic retaliation. The pursuit of justice is punished. The preservation of power is prioritized.

Fossil Fuels and the Death Economy

Despite decades of research proving the existential threat of fossil fuels, many university endowments remain deeply invested in oil, gas, and coal. The divestment movement, led primarily by students, has scored some victories—but these are often cosmetic. Institutions may pull direct holdings while maintaining exposure through private equity or index funds.

Fossil fuel interests also shape research agendas, sponsor misleading "carbon capture" or "clean energy" projects, and silence environmental whistleblowers. Professors who speak out risk losing funding. Departments that challenge fossil capital are marginalized. The truth, as always, is inconvenient.

War as a University Business Model

Finally, the war economy permeates American higher education at every level. Defense contracts support engineering departments. ROTC programs and military recruiting are embedded in campus life. Universities run weapons labs, receive funding from DARPA, and participate in Department of Defense research initiatives. The "military-academic-industrial complex" is not an abstraction—it is the everyday reality of higher ed.

Many of these contracts directly support weapons development used in current conflicts. And as with fossil fuels, the system is built to insulate the university from moral scrutiny. War is framed as "security research." Genocide is called "a contested political issue." Exploitation is rendered invisible through language.

Toward a Reckoning

The American university must decide: Will it continue to serve as a laundering machine for violence, fossil capital, and authoritarian control? Or can it reimagine itself as a truly democratic institution—answerable not to trustees and donors, but to the communities it serves?

That transformation will not come from the top. It will come from students occupying campus lawns, adjuncts organizing for fair wages, and the public demanding transparency and divestment. The reckoning is long overdue.

Until then, university presidents, trustees, and donors will remain what they have become: polished stewards of empire, cloaked in Ivy and moral evasion.

The Higher Education Inquirer continues to investigate the political economy of higher ed, exposing how institutions prioritize power and profit over people and planet.