Epstein, Dershowitz, Summers, and the Long Arc of Elite Impunity

For many observers, Jeffrey Epstein, Alan Dershowitz, and Larry Summers appear as separate figures orbiting the world of elite academia, finance, and politics. But together—and through the long lens of history—they represent something far more revealing: the modern expression of a centuries-old system in which elite institutions protect powerful men while sacrificing the vulnerable.

The Epstein-Dershowitz-Summers triangle is not a scandal of individuals gone astray. It is the predictable result of structures that make such abuses almost inevitable.

The Modern Version of an Old System

Jeffrey Epstein built his influence not through scholarship or scientific discovery—he had no advanced degrees—but by inserting himself into the financial bloodstream of the Ivy League. Harvard and MIT accepted his money, his introductions, and his promises of access to ultra-wealthy networks. Epstein did not need credibility; he purchased it.

Larry Summers, as president of Harvard from 2001 to 2006, continued to engage with Epstein after the financier’s first arrest and plea deal. Summers’ administration accepted substantial Epstein donations, including funds channeled into the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics. Summers and his wife dined at Epstein’s Manhattan home. After leaving Harvard, Summers stayed in touch with Epstein even as the financier’s abuses became increasingly public. Summers used the same revolving door that has long connected elite universities, Wall Street, and presidential administrations—moving freely and comfortably across all three.

Alan Dershowitz, former Harvard Law Professor and Epstein’s close associate and legal strategist, exemplifies another pillar of this system: elite legal protection. Dershowitz defended Epstein vigorously, attacked survivors publicly, and remains embroiled in litigation connected to the case. Whether one believes Dershowitz’s claims of innocence is secondary to the structural fact: elite institutions reliably shield their own.

Together, Epstein offered money and connections; Summers offered institutional prestige and political access; Dershowitz offered legal insulation. Harvard, meanwhile, offered a platform through which all three profited.

Knowledge as a Shield—Not a Light

For centuries, elite universities have served as both engines of knowledge and fortresses of power. They are not neutral institutions.

They defended slavery and eugenics, supplying “scientific” justification for racial hierarchies.
They exploited labor—from enslaved workers who built campuses to adjuncts living in poverty today.
They marginalized survivors of sexual violence while protecting benefactors and faculty.
They accepted fortunes derived from war profiteering, colonial extraction, hedge-fund predation, and private-equity devastation.

Epstein did not invent the model of the toxic patron. He merely perfected it in the neoliberal era.

A Four-Step Pattern of Elite Impunity

The scandal surrounding Epstein, Dershowitz, and Summers follows a trajectory that dates back centuries:

1. Wealth accumulation through exploitation
   From slave plantations to private equity, concentrated wealth is generated through systems that harm the many to benefit the few.

2. The purchase of academic legitimacy
   Endowed chairs, laboratories, fellowships, and advisory roles allow dubious benefactors to launder reputations through universities.

3. Legal and cultural shielding
   Elite lawyers, confidential settlements, non-disclosure agreements, and institutional silence create protective armor.

4. Silencing of survivors and critics
   Reputational attacks, threats of litigation, and internal pressure discourage transparency and accountability.

Epstein operated within this system. Dershowitz defended it. Summers benefited from it. Harvard reinforced it.

Larry Summers: An Anatomy of Power

Summers’ career illuminates the deeper structure behind the scandal. His trajectory—Harvard president, U.S. Treasury Secretary, World Bank chief economist, adviser to hedge funds, consultant to Big Tech—mirrors the seamless circulation of elite power between universities, finance, and government.

During his presidency, Harvard publicly embraced Epstein’s donations. After Epstein’s first sex-offense conviction, Summers continued to meet with him socially and professionally. Summers leveraged networks that Epstein also sought to cultivate. And even after the Epstein scandal fully broke open, Summers faced no meaningful institutional repercussions.

The message was clear: individual wrongdoing matters less than maintaining elite continuity.

Higher Education’s Structural Complicity

Elite universities were not “duped.” They were beneficiaries.

Harvard returned only a fraction of Epstein’s donations, and only after the press exposed the relationship. MIT hid Epstein’s gifts behind false donor names. Faculty traveled to his island and penthouse without demanding transparency.

Meanwhile:

Adjuncts qualify for food assistance
Students carry life-crippling debt
Administrators earn CEO-level pay
Donors dictate priorities behind closed doors

This is not hypocrisy—it is hierarchy. A system built to serve wealth does exactly that.

A Timeline Much Longer Than Epstein

To understand the present, we must zoom out:

Oxford and Cambridge accepted slave-trade wealth as institutional lifeblood.
Gilded Age robber barons endowed libraries while crushing labor movements.
Cold War intelligence agencies quietly funded research centers.
Today’s oligarchs, tech billionaires, and private-equity titans buy influence through endowments and think tanks.

The tools change. The pattern does not.

Universities help legitimate the powerful—even when those powerful figures harm the public.

Why This Still Matters

The Epstein scandal is not resolved. Court documents continue to emerge. Survivors continue to speak. Elite institutions continue to stall and deflect. Harvard still resists meaningful transparency, even as its endowment approaches national GDP levels.

The danger is not simply that another Epstein will emerge. It is that elite universities will continue to provide the conditions that make another Epstein inevitable.

What Breaking the Pattern Requires

Ending this system demands more than symbolic gestures or public-relations apologies. Real reform requires:

Radical donor transparency—with all gifts, advisory roles, and meetings disclosed
Worker and student representation on governing boards
Strong whistleblower protections and the abolition of secret NDAs
Robust public funding to reduce reliance on elite philanthropy
Independent journalism committed to exposing institutional power

Ida B. Wells, Jessica Mitford, Upton Sinclair, and other muckrakers understood what universities still deny: scandals are symptoms. The disease is structural.

Epstein was not an anomaly.
Dershowitz is not an anomaly.
Summers is not an anomaly.

They are products of a system in which universities serve power first—and truth, only if convenient.

If higher education wants to reclaim public trust, it must finally decide which side of history it is on.

The Nursing Shortage Hoax: Burnout, Exploitation, and the Real Crisis in American Healthcare

For decades, the American public has been bombarded with headlines warning of a “nursing shortage.” News outlets, healthcare lobbyists, and policymakers routinely echo the claim that there simply aren’t enough nurses to meet demand. The implication is clear: if only we could train more nurses, our healthcare system would recover.

But this narrative is a dangerous hoax—one that obscures the root causes of the crisis in nursing and shifts blame from hospital administrators, healthcare corporations, and public officials to workers and schools. The real problem isn’t a lack of nurses. It’s that too many nurses are burned out, disrespected, and driven from the profession by the very institutions that claim to need them.

Supply Exceeds Demand—Until the Budget Shrinks

According to the National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN), there are over 5 million licensed registered nurses in the United States. But only about 3.1 million are employed as RNs. Thousands more work in non-nursing roles because they can't find hospital jobs that pay a living wage—or because they’ve left frontline care for their mental health.

Meanwhile, colleges and universities have ramped up nursing programs, often with hefty tuition costs. For-profit nursing schools and online diploma mills have further expanded the pipeline, in part due to government pressure to "solve" the shortage. Yet the jobs nurses are entering—or leaving—are grueling, underpaid, and too often unsafe.

The real issue is retention, not recruitment. And the people driving nurses away know exactly what they’re doing.

The Burnout Epidemic

Nurse burnout has reached catastrophic levels. A 2023 report by the American Nurses Foundation found that over 60% of nurses report symptoms of burnout: emotional exhaustion, depression, depersonalization, and a sense of futility. Nearly one in three consider leaving the profession entirely.

The reasons are no mystery:

• Chronic understaffing, often intentional, means nurses are responsible for too many patients at once—sometimes double or triple safe ratios.

• Mandatory overtime and unpredictable shifts prevent recovery and family life.

• Violence against nurses has increased, with minimal support from hospital leadership.

• Moral injury is common: watching patients suffer due to insurance denials, lack of staff, or profit-driven policies.

Hospitals—especially those owned by private equity firms and mega-health systems—maximize profits by minimizing labor costs. That means keeping staffing levels dangerously low and leaning on travel nurses, gig workers, and new grads instead of building a sustainable workforce.

A Manufactured Crisis for Policy and Profit

Why perpetuate the "nursing shortage" myth? Because it serves multiple powerful interests:

• Hospitals and health systems use the shortage narrative to justify importing nurses from abroad under temporary work visas, often under precarious conditions.

• Politicians use it to avoid deeper conversations about working conditions, safe staffing laws, or universal healthcare.

• Education providers, especially for-profits, profit from the flood of new enrollees chasing stable careers—often leaving with crushing debt.

• Tech firms and “innovative” hospital administrators push AI tools and robotic solutions, promising to replace or "augment" nurses instead of investing in human care.

The supposed “shortage” also justifies anti-labor rhetoric. When nurses organize, strike, or demand safe staffing, they’re cast as selfish or unrealistic. After all, shouldn’t they just be grateful to have jobs in a system that’s desperate for them?

Calling the Bluff

If there were a true shortage, we would see rising wages, sign-on bonuses, and long-term benefits. Instead, we see hospital administrators earning millions while bedside nurses struggle with burnout, PTSD, and poverty.

If there were a true shortage, hospitals wouldn’t fight tooth and nail against safe staffing legislation, like the kind passed in California. They’d welcome rules that make the work sustainable.

If there were a true shortage, we wouldn’t be flooding the system with underprepared students while bleeding experienced nurses.

And if nursing education was truly about solving the crisis, we would be making it free, community-based, and integrated with healthcare reform—not driven by predatory institutions or private equity.

Toward a Real Solution

The future of nursing—and healthcare—depends not on how many nurses we can mint from expensive degree programs, but on how we treat the ones we already have. Solutions must start with:

• Mandatory safe staffing ratios, nationally.

• Debt relief for nurses and free public nursing education.

• Mental health support and trauma-informed care for care workers.

• Union protections and fair contracts to reduce turnover and improve morale.

• Accountability for hospital administrators and investors who prioritize profits over people.

It’s time to end the charade. The nursing shortage is not a natural disaster—it’s a policy choice. And it’s killing both nurses and patients.

---

Sources:

• National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN), 2024 Workforce Report

• American Nurses Foundation, Pulse on the Nation’s Nurses Survey Series

• National Nurses United: Safe Staffing and Workplace Violence Reports

• Center for Economic and Policy Research: "The Real Cause of the Nursing Crisis"

• The Guardian, “Private Equity and the Hollowing Out of U.S. Healthcare” (2023)

If you’re a nurse, nursing student, or former nurse with a story to tell, reach out to us at the Higher Education Inquirer. We’re listening.

Should Elites Get Bailed Out Again?

In 1929, when the stock market crashed, millions of Americans were plunged into unemployment, hunger, and despair. Yet the elites of Wall Street—whose reckless speculation fueled the disaster—often landed softly. By 1933, as the Great Depression deepened, nearly a quarter of the U.S. workforce was unemployed, thousands of banks had failed, and working families bore the brunt of the collapse. Ordinary people endured soup lines, Dust Bowl migration, and generational poverty. The government of Franklin D. Roosevelt eventually stepped in with reforms and safeguards like the FDIC and Glass-Steagall, but not before working-class Americans had paid the heaviest price.

Fast forward to 2008, when the global financial system once again teetered on collapse. This time, instead of letting the failures run their course, the U.S. government rushed to bail out Wall Street banks, auto manufacturers, and other corporate giants deemed “too big to fail.” Banks survived, CEOs kept their bonuses, and investors were shielded. Meanwhile, millions of working-class families lost their homes, jobs, and savings. Student loan borrowers, particularly those from working-class and minority backgrounds, never got a bailout. Adjunct faculty, contract workers, and gig laborers were left to navigate economic insecurity without systemic relief.

The pandemic brought the same story in a new form. Corporate bailouts, Federal Reserve interventions, and stimulus packages stabilized markets far more effectively than they stabilized households. Wall Street bounced back faster than Main Street. By 2021, the wealth of America’s billionaires had surged by more than $1.8 trillion, while ordinary workers struggled with eviction threats, childcare crises, and medical debt.

But the stakes are even higher today. U.S. elites are not only repeating past mistakes—they are doubling down on mass speculation across Artificial Intelligence, crypto, real estate, and equity markets. The rise and collapse of speculative cryptocurrencies revealed how wealth can be created and destroyed almost overnight, with everyday investors bearing the losses while venture capitalists and insiders cashed out early. Real estate speculation has driven housing prices beyond the reach of millions of working families, fueling homelessness and displacement. Equity markets, inflated by cheap debt and stock buybacks, have become disconnected from the real economy, rewarding executives while leaving workers behind.

This speculative frenzy is not just an economic issue—it is an environmental one. Artificial Intelligence requires enormous data farms that use lots of energy.  Fossil fuel corporations and their financiers continue to reap profits from industries that accelerate climate change, deforestation, and resource depletion. The destruction of ecosystems, the intensification of climate disasters, and the burden of environmental cleanup all fall disproportionately on working-class and marginalized communities. Yet when markets wobble, it is these same polluting elites who position themselves first in line for government protection.

The Federal Reserve has played a decisive role in this cycle. By keeping interest rates artificially low for years, it fueled debt-driven speculation in housing, equities, and corporate borrowing. When inflation spiked, the Fed shifted gears, raising rates at the fastest pace in decades. This brought pain to households through higher mortgage costs, rising credit card balances, and job insecurity—but banks and investment firms continued to receive lifelines through emergency lending facilities. The Fed’s interventions have too often prioritized elite stability over working-class survival.

Political leadership has compounded the problem. Under Donald Trump's first term, deregulation accelerated, with key provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act rolled back in 2018. Banks gained greater leeway to take risks, and oversight of mid-sized institutions weakened—a decision that later contributed to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in 2023. Trump’s tax cuts overwhelmingly favored corporations and the wealthy, further concentrating wealth at the top while leaving the federal government less able to respond to future crises. In his second term, Trump and his allies signal that they would pressure the Fed to prioritize markets over workers and strip down remaining regulatory guardrails.

The logic of endless bailouts assumes that the survival of elites ensures the survival of the economy. But history proves otherwise. Whether in 1929, 2008, or 2020, the repeated subsidization of corporations and financial elites entrenches inequality, fuels reckless risk-taking, and leaves working families with the bill. The banks, crypto funds, and private equity firms that profit most during boom times rarely share their gains, yet they demand protection in busts.

And the problem is no longer just domestic—it is geopolitical. While U.S. elites depend on bailouts, rival powers are recalibrating. China is building alternative banking systems through the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Belt and Road Initiative. Russia, sanctioned by the West, is tightening its economic ties with China and other non-Western states. India and Brazil, key players in the BRICS bloc, are exploring alternatives to U.S. dollar dominance. If the U.S. continues to subsidize private failure with public money, it risks undermining its own global credibility and ceding economic leadership to rivals.

National security is directly tied to economic and environmental stability. A U.S. that repeatedly bails out elites while leaving ordinary citizens vulnerable erodes trust not only at home but abroad. Allies may question American leadership, while adversaries see opportunity in its fragility. If the U.S. financial system is perceived as permanently rigged—propping up elites while disempowering its workforce—it will accelerate the shift of global influence toward China, Russia, India, and Brazil.

Perhaps it’s time to let the system fail—not in the sense of mass suffering for ordinary people, but in the sense of refusing to cushion elites from the consequences of their own decisions. If banks gamble recklessly, let them face bankruptcy. If private equity firms strip-mine industries, let them collapse under their own weight. If universities chase speculative growth with predatory lending and overpriced credentials, let them answer for it in the courts of law and public opinion.

Failure, though painful, can also be cleansing. Without bailouts, institutions would be forced to reckon with structural flaws instead of papering them over. Alternatives could emerge: community-based credit unions, worker-owned cooperatives, public higher education funded for the public good rather than private profit, and serious investment in green energy and sustainable development.

The real question is not whether elites deserve another bailout. The real question is whether the United States can afford to keep subsidizing them while undermining its working class, its environment, and its national security. For too long, workers, students, and families have shouldered the costs of elite failure. The survival of the U.S. economy—and its place in the world—may depend not on saving elites, but on building something stronger and fairer in their place.

---

Sources:

• Congressional Budget Office, The 2008 Financial Crisis and Federal Response

• Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Bank Failures During the Great Depression

• Institute for Policy Studies, Billionaire Wealth Surge During COVID-19

• Federal Reserve, Monetary Policy and Emergency Lending Facilities

• Brookings Institution, Bailouts and Moral Hazard

• BRICS Policy Center, Alternative Financial Governance Structures

• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2023 Synthesis Report

• National Association of Realtors, Housing Affordability Data

• Public Law 115-174, Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (2018)

Unaffordable Housing in the Trump Era: Beyond the Dream, Into the Crisis

In today’s America, the promise of safe, stable, and affordable housing is slipping further out of reach. Despite the Trump administration’s claims of economic revival and prosperity, millions of Americans are being priced out, boxed in, or forced into precarious living arrangements. The root causes are not mysterious. They are systemic, policy-driven, and deeply intertwined with speculative greed and political neglect.

The median home sale price in the United States now stands at $440,892, according to Redfin’s May 2025 data. That number alone should alarm anyone who remembers when homeownership was a realistic goal for middle-class families. Mortgage rates remain elevated at nearly 7 percent, driving up average monthly housing payments to more than $2,800. Meanwhile, wages have stagnated, and inflation has eaten away at what little purchasing power remains for working families. The math no longer works. The dream no longer adds up.

Redfin’s analysis also reveals that a household now needs to earn more than $116,000 per year to afford a typical home. In contrast, the income required to rent is around $64,000—creating the widest gap between buying and renting in modern history. But renting is hardly a reprieve. Rents remain high in many cities and towns, often rivaling mortgage payments without offering the long-term security or equity of homeownership.

For those who do manage to purchase homes, the costs don’t stop with the mortgage. Homeowners Association (HOA) fees, once a modest cost to maintain shared spaces, have ballooned into a significant monthly burden. Across the country, homeowners are now paying between $250 and $700 each month in HOA fees, with some communities—especially in urban and luxury markets—charging over $1,000. These fees are often non-negotiable and tied to strict, sometimes punitive rules enforced by private management firms. What was meant to foster community has become a system of control and financial extraction.

And while the affluent buy and sell property as investment vehicles, everyday Americans are packing into shared housing out of necessity, not preference. The sitcom Friends portrayed roommate life as quirky and fun, but today’s version is starkly different. Living with roommates in 2025 is less about friendship and more about survival. According to Pew Research, more than one in four adults under 35 live with roommates or extended family. Redfin reports a 25 percent increase in roommate listings over the past year, as professionals—including teachers, nurses, and adjunct professors—struggle to afford rent on their own.

In university towns and major metro areas alike, it’s not uncommon to see five or six adults sharing a two-bedroom apartment. Living rooms are converted into bedrooms. People rent bunkbeds in “pod living” arrangements. Privacy, safety, and basic dignity are sacrificed. This is the new normal for the working class in the United States.

Trump-era policies have only deepened the crisis. Federal tax incentives and deregulation under his administration overwhelmingly favored developers, landlords, and Wall Street investors. Tenant protections were weakened. HUD’s enforcement of fair housing laws was gutted. Tariffs on construction materials, sold to the public as nationalist economics, raised costs for builders and drove up home prices. Public housing projects were sold off or left to rot. Section 8 funding was cut, and anti-homeless ordinances—backed by federal grants—spread through red-state legislatures like wildfire.

Meanwhile, colleges and universities have played their part in exacerbating the problem. Institutions continue to expand enrollment without building sufficient affordable housing. For-profit developers are often brought in to build high-end dorms or apartments that price out low-income students and local residents. Adjunct faculty and grad students are among the most severely impacted, often earning poverty wages while paying market-rate rents near the schools they serve.

The Trump administration’s broader approach to housing can best be described as a landlord’s paradise. Investors and private equity firms have been allowed to buy up entire neighborhoods, displacing long-time residents and raising rents. Redfin data shows a massive influx of investor-owned properties, which are often rented at inflated rates or flipped for profit. The result is a housing market dominated by speculation and scarcity—where homes are treated as assets, not shelter.

The solutions are not out of reach, but they require political courage and a rejection of market fundamentalism. Rent control and HOA fee caps could immediately ease the burden on millions of families. Public and cooperative housing models could provide long-term stability. Policies that remove private equity and speculators from the housing ecosystem would free up units and cool down prices. Universities should be mandated to provide nonprofit, affordable housing for their students and staff. And a serious investment in housing as infrastructure—not just private development—would be a step toward reversing the damage.

The unaffordable housing crisis in the Trump era is not just a matter of bad luck or poor planning. It’s the product of deliberate choices that prioritize wealth accumulation over human needs. For the working class, students, and even many professionals, housing is no longer a right—it’s a battleground. And until we reclaim it, the dream of stability and security will remain just that: a dream.

Sources
Redfin Housing Market Data (May 2025): www.redfin.com/news/data-center
Redfin News: "The Income Needed to Buy a Home in 2025"
Pew Research Center: “Who Lives With Whom in 2025”
National Low Income Housing Coalition: Out of Reach 2025
Center for Budget and Policy Priorities: HUD Budget Trends
AP News: “Sellers Outnumber Buyers as Market Slows”
Business Insider: “First-Time Buyers Are Getting Squeezed Out of the Market”
HOA-USA: National HOA Fee Trends and Survey Data

If you’re a student, educator, or tenant affected by the housing crisis, the Higher Education Inquirer invites you to share your story. 

Ketamine Is Not the Cure We Need

Ketamine is having a moment. Once used almost exclusively as an anesthetic and known on the street as “Special K,” it is now being hailed as a cutting-edge treatment for depression, PTSD, and anxiety. Private clinics are popping up in cities and suburbs alike, offering infusions, nasal sprays, and lozenges for a steep price.

But behind the hopeful marketing lies a troubling reality: ketamine’s rise is less about public health than it is about profit.

Follow the Money

In the past five years, venture capital and private equity have flooded into the ketamine space. Chains like Field Trip Health, Ketamine Wellness Centers, and Klarisana have been buying up smaller practices and opening new ones at breakneck speed. Telehealth startups—some born out of pandemic-era deregulation—now ship ketamine lozenges directly to patients’ doors, bypassing in-person medical oversight.

The business model is simple:

• Charge between $400 and $800 per infusion, often multiple times per month.

• Encourage ongoing “maintenance” treatments to sustain fleeting mood improvements.

• Package the drug in a spa-like environment to justify the premium price.

There is no insurance guarantee for most patients, making ketamine therapy a cash-based service—a dream scenario for investors who want high margins without dealing with insurers.

Science on Shaky Ground

While some studies show ketamine can offer rapid symptom relief, the effects often fade within days or weeks. The drug’s long-term safety for repeated psychiatric use remains poorly studied. Potential side effects include memory impairment, bladder issues, and dissociation.

Even the FDA has not approved ketamine for depression—it has only approved esketamine (a derivative, sold under the brand name Spravato) for limited use in treatment-resistant cases. Yet clinics aggressively market generic ketamine “off-label” to a far wider audience.

Selling a Chemical Band-Aid for a Social Wound

The deeper issue is not just that ketamine’s benefits are short-lived—it’s that the marketing of ketamine clinics conveniently sidesteps the structural roots of the mental health crisis.

The United States is facing rising rates of loneliness, economic insecurity, and chronic disease. People are working longer hours for less pay. Housing is unstable, communities are fragmented, and processed food dominates our diets. For-profit healthcare treats these conditions as secondary, focusing instead on profitable “treatments” for their symptoms.

Ketamine fits neatly into this paradigm: it promises quick relief without requiring systemic change. It turns social pain into a personal chemical problem, to be managed one expensive infusion at a time.

The Alternative We’re Not Funding

If we truly want to improve mental health, we need to invest in what actually works long-term:

• Connection: Strong, face-to-face social networks.

• Movement: Exercise as a cultural norm, not a luxury.

• Nutrition: Access to fresh, whole foods—not just cheap processed calories.

• Dignified Work: Jobs that pay living wages and offer stability.

These solutions don’t generate quarterly returns for shareholders. They don’t make headlines in glossy wellness magazines. But they build the kind of resilience no ketamine clinic can replicate.

The question is not whether ketamine can help some people in crisis—it can. The question is whether we are willing to accept a future in which our collective mental health depends on paying private companies to administer short-term chemical escapes, rather than creating a society where people don’t feel so broken in the first place.

---

Sources:

• Schatzberg, A.F. (2014). A word to the wise about ketamine. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171(3), 262–264.

• Moncrieff, J., & Cooper, R.E. (2022). “Magic bullet” thinking in psychiatry: The case of ketamine. BJPsych Bulletin, 46(5), 285–288.

• CNBC. (2023). Ketamine therapy clinics see booming business, but experts urge caution.

• STAT News. (2024). Private equity eyes ketamine clinics as mental health crisis deepens.

The Rise of Christian Cybercharters: Profit, Indoctrination, and the Dangers of Faith-Based Online Education

As online education becomes an ever-expanding force in both K-12 and higher education, a disturbing trend has emerged with the rise of Christian cybercharter schools and online academies. While these institutions promise faith-based education and an alternative to secular public schooling, they also raise serious concerns about indoctrination, the commodification of education, and the profit-driven motives of their for-profit operators. For many families seeking an education aligned with their Christian values, these digital platforms offer an attractive solution. However, as the lines between faith-based learning and corporate interests blur, the question remains: what are we sacrificing in the pursuit of religiously guided education?

The Growing Influence of Christian Cybercharters

Christian cybercharter schools are part of a broader trend in which private, for-profit companies deliver education to students via online platforms. These schools, often designed to serve as alternatives to secular public education, integrate Christian teachings into core subjects such as history, science, and literature. While these schools may offer a semblance of flexibility for students in rural areas or families dissatisfied with traditional schooling, their model poses unique challenges.

Cybercharter schools are, by definition, public schools that operate entirely online and are funded with taxpayer dollars. Yet, the rise of Christian cybercharters, run by private companies, complicates the traditional understanding of education. These institutions, rather than simply providing secular education, often incorporate Christian teachings into all aspects of learning. Students may study math, science, and history through a Christian lens, learning creationism instead of evolution or receiving a heavily filtered view of history. In some cases, controversial issues such as LGBTQ+ rights and reproductive health are taught in ways that align with conservative Christian values, potentially ignoring or dismissing broader social, legal, and ethical considerations.

While these schools may appeal to parents seeking religiously grounded education for their children, concerns about the quality of education and the potential for indoctrination are mounting. Instead of offering an objective, well-rounded academic experience, these institutions may turn into ideological factories, promoting a singular worldview at the expense of critical thinking, intellectual curiosity, and open-mindedness.

James Loewen’s Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong serves as a cautionary tale when examining the educational landscape shaped by these faith-based online programs. In his book, Loewen critiques the sanitized, biased versions of American history often taught in public schools—narratives that ignore uncomfortable truths about racism, inequality, and colonialism. This phenomenon is mirrored in some Christian cybercharters, where history is frequently reinterpreted to promote a specific religious or political agenda, potentially leaving students with a distorted, incomplete understanding of the world. The difference here, of course, is that rather than the state pushing a particular narrative, these programs are driven by religious agendas that prioritize faith-based views over academic rigor and historical accuracy. Just as Loewen critiques the "lies" of public school textbooks, one could argue that these Christian educational platforms sometimes present a faith-filtered version of reality—one that aligns more with ideological conformity than intellectual exploration.

The Profit Motive: Corporations, Private Equity, and the Business of Faith-Based Education

At the heart of the Christian cybercharter movement is a growing involvement of private equity firms and publicly traded companies eager to profit from the expanding online education sector. Venture capitalists have increasingly poured investments into education technology companies, including Christian online platforms. As a result, more and more online education providers—particularly Christian cybercharter schools—are becoming businesses in the traditional sense, with financial returns prioritized over educational outcomes.

Much like other for-profit charter schools, these Christian cybercharters face the same pressures to maximize revenue. While proponents of this model argue that parents should have the option to select an education aligned with their values, critics argue that profit-driven motives overshadow educational quality. In many cases, the companies running these online schools are more focused on expansion, enrollment, and financial performance than on fostering critical thinking or providing a rigorous, well-rounded education.

In the case of for-profit Christian cybercharters, this business model often leads to a corporate agenda that prioritizes market share rather than genuine educational development. Whether or not these schools offer the best or most effective education is secondary to their role as vehicles for profit. Furthermore, because many of these institutions are delivered through online platforms, the lack of direct teacher-student interaction and oversight further diminishes the opportunity for intellectual debate and inquiry.

Indoctrination vs. Education: The Risks of Religious-Based Learning

One of the most significant concerns with Christian cybercharters is the potential for indoctrination. Unlike secular education, where students are encouraged to explore various ideas, form their own opinions, and critically engage with the material, Christian cybercharters often deliver content that aligns solely with religious teachings. In many cases, students are not encouraged to question or challenge the material they are given, but rather to accept it as the unquestionable truth.

For example, in science courses, students may be taught creationism in place of evolution or may receive instruction that contradicts widely accepted scientific principles. In history classes, there may be a deliberate effort to present historical events through a Christian lens, prioritizing religious interpretations and avoiding broader, secular understandings. This framing can affect the way students understand the world and interact with it, teaching them to see things in a way that aligns with specific religious views, rather than providing them with the tools to critically evaluate the world around them.

Loewen’s Lies My Teacher Told Me warns of the dangers of sanitized history education. The same critique can be applied to some Christian online academies. Just as Loewen highlights how mainstream textbooks gloss over the uncomfortable truths of American history—such as the treatment of Native Americans or the legacy of slavery—Christian cybercharter schools may whitewash history to fit a specific theological or political narrative. Students may learn that America is a "Christian nation," without an in-depth exploration of the diversity of belief systems that have shaped the country, or the ways in which Christianity’s role in history has been contested and debated. The problem arises when children, instead of being equipped to navigate complex historical realities, are taught to passively accept an ideological version of the past.

When education becomes synonymous with religious indoctrination, the line between objective knowledge and belief becomes dangerously blurred. Students are taught not to think critically about their beliefs or values but to accept them as fact, leaving little room for exploration, dialogue, or intellectual growth. The digital environment, where much of the learning takes place through pre-recorded lessons and automated grading systems, exacerbates this issue by limiting opportunities for meaningful teacher-student interaction.

The Corporate Takeover of Higher Education: Robocolleges and Faith-Based Learning

The influence of private companies and venture capital isn’t just limited to K-12 education. As online education expands, the model of faith-based learning is also infiltrating higher education. Many institutions are now offering Christian-based online degree programs, promising students a “Christian worldview” in subjects ranging from business to theology. While these programs may appeal to individuals seeking a religiously informed education, they raise concerns about the quality and breadth of education students receive.

The rise of “Robocolleges”—virtual universities run by corporations that offer online degrees—is another manifestation of the growing corporate control over education. These online programs, often funded by investors looking for high returns, can prioritize cost-efficiency and marketability over rigorous academic standards. In the case of faith-based online institutions, the goal can shift from providing a comprehensive education that challenges students to think critically about the world, to creating a narrow ideological framework where students are encouraged to see the world solely through the lens of Christianity.

In this environment, the rise of “Robostudents”—individuals who navigate education through algorithms and automated platforms—further deepens the risk of creating a generation of individuals who are highly specialized but lack the broad intellectual and social competencies needed to thrive in a diverse world.

Christian Robokids: The Future of Digital Indoctrination

A particularly concerning aspect of the rise of Christian cybercharters and online academies is the emergence of Christian Robokids—students who, in addition to receiving a faith-based education, are increasingly immersed in a highly automated, digital, and corporate-driven learning environment. As Christian cybercharters adopt more sophisticated AI and data-driven learning platforms, children may begin to engage with content not only through pre-recorded lessons but through AI-powered tutors and personalized learning paths that adapt to each student's “progress.” While this may sound appealing in theory, it opens the door for a future in which students are not only learning religious doctrine but are also being trained to conform to predetermined educational frameworks, shaped more by corporate interests than intellectual freedom.

Christian Robokids would navigate a digital education system where their learning is increasingly controlled by algorithms designed to maximize efficiency and profitability. These students could interact with content tailored to reinforce a singular religious viewpoint, with little to no exposure to diverse perspectives. In a world of Robokids, students might not engage in real discussions with teachers or peers, but instead follow rigid, automated curriculums. Their development into “robostudents” is further cemented by the complete absence of opportunities for face-to-face interaction, debate, and critical engagement with differing worldviews.

Moreover, the lack of teacher oversight in an entirely virtual system means that students may miss out on developing social and emotional intelligence, important for engaging in the complex, pluralistic world beyond the screen. The robotic nature of learning—where students become passive recipients of information rather than active participants—poses long-term risks to the intellectual and social development of children in these environments.

The Biggest Christian Online Academies

Several major Christian online academies are leading the charge in this digital faith-based education landscape, offering K-12 programs that blend academic rigor with Christian values. These academies not only cater to homeschool families but also serve as alternatives to public school systems, providing religiously grounded curricula that focus on both intellectual development and spiritual growth. Some of the largest and most well-known Christian online academies include:

1. Liberty University Online Academy – This academy offers a comprehensive K-12 online program with a strong focus on biblical teachings alongside standard academic subjects. Liberty University, a major Christian institution, has established a reputation for delivering accredited programs that combine faith and learning.

2. BJU Press Online Academy – Known for its biblical integration and classical Christian education approach, BJU Press offers a fully accredited K-12 online program that focuses on a Christ-centered worldview while delivering high-quality academics.

3. Alpha Omega Academy (AOP) – A significant player in the Christian homeschooling space, AOP’s online academy offers a customizable, accredited K-12 curriculum. Its flexible approach allows families to integrate Bible-based teachings into core subjects.

4. The King’s Academy – A Christian online school that blends academic excellence with spiritual development, providing a biblically integrated curriculum from kindergarten to high school.

5. Veritas Scholars Academy – Known for its classical Christian education model, Veritas offers online courses with a focus on critical thinking, intellectual development, and biblical integration for students in K-12.

These online academies reflect the growing demand for faith-based education in the digital era, offering flexible options for families who prioritize both academic excellence and spiritual growth. However, as these institutions scale and continue to integrate new technologies, the risk of further corporate influence and educational homogenization grows, raising questions about the long-term impact on students' ability to think critically and engage with a diverse world.

The Danger of "Garbage In, Garbage Out" in Faith-Based Education

A worrying byproduct of the corporate-driven Christian cybercharter model is the “Garbage In, Garbage Out” phenomenon. Just as for-profit companies may prioritize profits over educational outcomes, so too does this model risk producing students who are poorly prepared for the real world. If the content students are being fed is biased, ideologically driven, or scientifically flawed, the result will be a generation of graduates whose knowledge is narrow, incomplete, and disconnected from the realities of an increasingly diverse and complex world.

Christian cybercharters, while offering a religious alternative to public schools, risk leaving students unprepared for intellectual challenges and social engagement. Without the opportunity to engage with diverse perspectives or develop critical thinking skills, students may find themselves ill-equipped to navigate the broader society or the ever-changing workforce.

Conclusion: The Future of Faith-Based Education

As the trend of Christian cybercharters and online academies continues to grow, the future of faith-based education remains uncertain. Will these digital platforms provide students with the academic rigor, critical thinking skills, and social understanding they need to thrive in a complex world, or will they become vehicles for ideological conformity and corporate profit? As parents and educators, it is critical to carefully evaluate these programs, balancing faith-based values with a commitment to fostering intellectual independence and a well-rounded education that prepares students for life beyond the classroom.

Caltech Settlement Spotlights Critical Need for OPM Transparency and Oversight in Higher Education

A recent Republic Report article by Jeremy Bauer-Wolf outlines the terms of a legal settlement between the California Institute of Technology and students enrolled in its Simplilearn-run cybersecurity bootcamp. The case and its resolution reveal larger systemic risks associated with university partnerships with Online Program Managers (OPMs), particularly those involving aggressive marketing, limited academic oversight, and questionable student outcomes.

The Caltech-Simplilearn bootcamp, launched under Caltech’s Center for Technology and Management Education, was marketed heavily using the university's brand. Students enrolled in the program alleged that Caltech misrepresented its level of involvement. The program was, in fact, designed and operated by Simplilearn, a for-profit OPM controlled by Blackstone and backed by GSV Ventures. The university seal and branding were used extensively in recruitment materials, leading some students to believe they were enrolling in a Caltech-created and Caltech-taught program. The class-action lawsuit contended that the program failed to live up to the expectations created by this branding.

As part of the settlement, Caltech and Simplilearn agreed to provide refunds to more than 260 students, totaling about $400,000. In addition to financial relief, the agreement requires clear disclosures that the bootcamp is “in collaboration with Simplilearn” and mandates that recruiters use Simplilearn email addresses rather than appearing to represent Caltech. The university must also ensure instructors possess verifiable professional credentials, not just certificates from prior bootcamp participation. Caltech is scheduled to wind down the program by the end of November 2025.

The Higher Education Inquirer previously reported in September 2024 that the Caltech-Simplilearn partnership was a case study in what can go wrong with white-labeled OPM programs. Simplilearn, which reported 35–45 percent annual revenue growth, had entered similar arrangements with Purdue, UMass, Brown, and UC San Diego. In many of these cases, the university’s brand was being used to sell pre-packaged courses created and delivered by the OPM. In Reddit forums and independent consumer reviews, former students regularly cited misleading marketing, lack of academic rigor, and poor support services. HEI's reporting raised concerns about the involvement of GSV Ventures, whose investors include high-profile education reformers like Arne Duncan and Michael Horn, as well as the private equity backing of Blackstone.

John Katzman, founder of the Noodle OPM, publicly warned about this model in 2024, saying, “White labeling is done everywhere… Still, I wouldn’t put my university’s name on other peoples’ programs without clear disclosure.” The Caltech case confirms that the reputational risks of such arrangements are real and can result in legal and financial liability.

The broader implications are significant. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, universities have increasingly turned to OPMs to expand their online offerings quickly and with limited internal resources. These partnerships often involve tuition-share agreements in which the OPM receives a large percentage of student revenue—sometimes as much as 80 percent. In return, the OPM provides marketing, recruitment, course development, and instructional support. However, as Caltech’s case illustrates, this model can easily sideline university faculty, diminish educational quality, and mislead students.

Policy makers have begun to respond. Minnesota has banned tuition-share arrangements in its public colleges. Ohio now requires OPM disclosure on university websites. A 2023 California state audit found that several public institutions were engaging in misleading marketing through their OPM partners. Yet federal regulations around OPMs remain limited and largely unenforced, despite calls for greater oversight.

The Caltech settlement reinforces the need for strong institutional governance over OPM partnerships. Universities must ensure full transparency in marketing, maintain academic control over curriculum and instruction, and build systems of accountability that protect students from misleading practices. Caltech’s retreat from its bootcamp partnership may serve as a warning to other elite institutions that have outsourced large portions of their online education operations with minimal oversight.

This episode also underscores the importance of investigative journalism in higher education. The Higher Education Inquirer’s early reporting on the Caltech-Simplilearn relationship helped expose a pattern of questionable practices that extend far beyond one institution. With private equity and venture capital deeply embedded in the OPM sector, the risks of commodifying higher education continue to grow.

Sources:
https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2024/09/cal-tech-simplilearn-blackstone-scandal.html
https://www.republicreport.org/2025/caltech-settlement-underscores-need-for-opm-oversight-in-higher-ed/
https://www.govtech.com/education/higher-ed/caltech-settles-lawsuit-over-cybersecurity-boot-camp-marketing
https://newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/

Who Really Rules Higher Education in Texas?

Texas has long held a paradoxical position in American higher education—home to elite research universities like the University of Texas at Austin and Rice University, sprawling community colleges, aggressive for-profit colleges, and some of the nation’s most ideological legislative battles over curriculum and control. But beneath this multifaceted system lies a sharper question: Who really rules higher education in Texas?

The answer, as in William Domhoff's Who Rules America?, lies not in the democratic ideal of a neutral, public-serving education system, but in a network of wealth, political power, and corporate interests that increasingly determine who gets educated, what they learn, and who profits.

Oil, Oligarchs, and the Board of Regents

Texas higher education has always been intertwined with fossil fuel wealth. The University of Texas and Texas A&M systems benefit from the Permanent University Fund (PUF), built from vast West Texas oil and gas revenues. This financial cushion has helped build world-class infrastructure—but it has also made these institutions vulnerable to elite capture.

Regents appointed by Republican governors—often wealthy businesspeople, energy executives, and political donors—wield enormous influence. These appointments are less about educational expertise than loyalty to political and economic interests. The Board of Regents has functioned as a tool for ideological enforcement and donor-class control, rather than a steward of academic integrity.

The Shadow Power of Elite Private Schools

Elite private institutions such as Rice University, Southern Methodist University (SMU), and Baylor University play a quieter but equally significant role in shaping Texas’s academic and cultural landscape. Heavily endowed, often legacy-driven, and historically exclusionary, these schools serve as pipelines to elite law firms, corporate boards, and government agencies.

Though less exposed to direct political interference than public schools, these institutions remain tethered to the same economic power centers—big oil, finance, and real estate. Their boards are dominated by billionaires, their research often subsidized by corporate contracts, and their prestige protected by carefully curated admissions policies. The myth of meritocracy is preserved through glossy brochures and selective philanthropy, but access remains restricted by legacy, wealth, and social capital.

The University of Austin: A Privatized Culture War Experiment

The recently launched University of Austin (UATX) has emerged as the most explicit expression of Texas’s ideological drift. Founded by anti-woke entrepreneurs and libertarian-leaning academics, UATX markets itself as a haven for free speech and anti-orthodoxy—but it is, in essence, a venture capital-funded think tank with a university label.

With backing from Silicon Valley moguls and conservative influencers, UATX represents the privatized, boutique model of ideological education: elite, exclusionary, and built from the top down. It doesn’t serve the broader public so much as it serves a political narrative. It is less about offering a robust education than cultivating a new cadre of culture warriors with academic credentials.

The Rise of Christian Nationalists and Culture War Education

In parallel, Texas’s right-wing legislature has increasingly politicized public higher education. DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) offices have been defunded. Critical race theory has been demonized. Professors face mounting surveillance and restrictions on academic content.

Senate Bill 17, sponsored by State Senator Brandon Creighton, banned DEI offices across public institutions. Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick has explicitly called for the dismissal of faculty deemed too liberal. These moves are not isolated—they reflect a growing campaign to remake public education as a conservative ideological apparatus.

Privatization and the Businessification of Education

Corporate power, meanwhile, has reshaped the educational infrastructure behind the scenes. Think tanks like the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF)—funded by Koch money and fossil fuel magnates—push privatization, deregulation, and the businessification of public services.

Online program managers (OPMs), ed-tech startups, and private equity-funded providers offer turnkey degrees and credentialing schemes that promise efficiency but often deliver subpar instruction, student surveillance, and high attrition. The revolving door between university administrators and the for-profit education sector ensures that public education serves private goals.

Who’s Left Out?

Working-class Texans—especially Black, Hispanic, and rural students—remain sidelined. Community colleges, where the majority of first-generation and low-income students begin, are perennially underfunded and politically neglected. Four-year public institutions are increasingly unaffordable. Debt is rising. Admissions remain stratified by zip code, standardized tests, and legacy connections.

Undocumented students and DACA recipients, once supported by early DREAM Act-style policies, now face mounting barriers. The ideal of universal access is being eroded by systemic inequality—racial, economic, and political.

Resistance and Hope

Yet Texas is not entirely lost to reaction. Faculty groups, student organizers, and investigative journalists are pushing back. Community colleges are innovating against austerity. Alternative models of education—democratic, inclusive, publicly accountable—persist, even if they are under threat.

But to truly reclaim higher education for the people, we must see through the spectacle. Texas doesn’t just have a higher ed system—it has a ruling class that uses education to reproduce its power. Until we confront that reality, the state’s students, workers, and communities will continue to bear the cost.

---

In Texas, who rules higher education? Not students. Not teachers. Not communities. The answer is: oil barons, hedge funders, ideologues, and empire builders. Until that changes, higher education will remain a tool of exclusion—not liberation.

---

Sources:

• Domhoff, William. Who Rules America? McGraw-Hill Education, multiple editions.

• Texas Tribune. “Gov. Abbott's Higher Ed Appointees Have Deep Industry Ties.” Texas Tribune

• University of Texas System. “The Permanent University Fund (PUF).” utsystem.edu

• Inside Higher Ed. “Texas Bans DEI in Higher Education.” (2023)

• Chronicle of Higher Education. “Dan Patrick’s Culture War Against Texas Professors.”

• Texas Public Policy Foundation. tppf.org

• The University of Austin. “Why We're Founding a New University.” uaustin.org

• Hechinger Report. “Who Gets Left Behind at Texas Community Colleges?”

• Education Trust. “Racial Disparities in Texas Higher Education Outcomes.”

• The Century Foundation. “The Problem with Online Program Managers.”

• The Intercept. “Billionaires and Anti-Woke Crusaders Launch a University in Texas.”

Tips, leaks, or story ideas? Contact the Higher Education Inquirer.

JLL Partners facing tough decisions with Fortis Colleges and Institutes

Related Link: Fortis Layoff.com page

Related link: When College Choice is a Fraud (2016)

Related Link: College Meltdown: Where's the Bottom (2019)?

Now that many publicly traded for-profit colleges have collapsed, College Meltdown is looking at private equity firms that own subprime colleges.

One of the most notable for-profit college conglomerates, Education Affiliates, operates Fortis Colleges and Fortis Institutes and other lesser known trade schools.  Fortis schools are managed by EA, but they are owned by JLL Partners, a New York City-based private equity firm.

At least eight Fortis campuses have closed, leaving 32 locations. But many of the remaining schools have been losing money and 14 are on US Department of Education Heightened Cash Monitoring.

In 2016-17 (the last year available for data), 21 Fortis locations were unprofitable: Centerville, Cincinnati, Columbia, Cutler Bay, Cuyahoga Falls, Grand Prairie, Houston, Indianapolis, Norfolk, Phoenix, Richmond, Baltimore, Birmingham, Cookeville, Erie, Forty Fort, Lawrenceville, and Nashville.

The problem from the beginning has not been with instructional quality, but with programs offering limited gainful employment. Schools like Fortis offer programs that often lead to low wage jobs, and low wages make student loan debt insurmountable. Student loan repayment rates for Fortis schools range from 20 to 24 percent.

So how long can JLL Partners continue to let the red ink continue with these assets? Can cuts be made without cutting instructional quality and student resources? And how can Fortis schools compete with free community college in states like New Jersey, Tennessee, and Indiana, where Fortis campuses exist?

JLL Partners has many notable investors, including the University of Missouri System, Montana Board of Investments, Colorado Public Employees' Retirement Association, Regents of the University of California, Travelers Companies, and the New Jersey Pension Fund. All of these funds need to pay off their obligations; with New Jersey, the pressure to create substantial returns is enormous.

JLL Partners also owns Ross Medical Education Centers, ACE Cash Express, CATO Research, Medical Card System, Pioneer Bank, Point Blank Enterprises, Viant, and Xact Data Discovery.

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.

The Dirty World of Billionaire Leon Black and Jeffrey Epstein: Profits Over People

Leon Black, the billionaire co-founder and former chief executive officer of Apollo Global Management, maintained a financial relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein that lasted for years and ultimately contributed to Black’s resignation from the firm. Why should HEI be covering this old story?  Because the theme, of profits over people, is a major theme in the dirty world of business that permeates US higher education. 

Profits Over People

Apollo Global Management, the firm Black co-founded, is one of the world’s largest alternative asset managers, with hundreds of billions of dollars in assets under management across private equity, credit, and real estate. In 2016, Apollo, along with the Vistria Group and Najafi Companies, acquired Apollo Education Group, the parent company of the University of Phoenix, for over $1.1 billion. The University of Phoenix remains under the control of these owners and continues to operate as a for-profit institution.

Critics of private equity and venture capital in education argue that such firms are driven by short-term profitability rather than long-term institutional quality. This can lead to aggressive marketing, high tuition, cuts to faculty and staff, and diminished student outcomes. In the case of Apollo Global Management’s ownership of the University of Phoenix, concerns have persisted about the potential for cost-cutting and profit-maximizing strategies to undermine the educational mission. For-profit colleges owned by large investment firms have been accused in the past of prioritizing shareholder returns over student success, adding another layer to the public scrutiny of both Apollo and the institutions it controls.

Ties Between Leon Black and Jeffrey Epstein

Between 2012 and 2017, Black paid Jeffrey Epstein approximately $158 million for what he described as financial advice, including tax and estate planning services. A March 2025 report from the Senate Finance Committee revealed that the total amount transferred to Epstein was closer to $170 million, about $12 million more than previously disclosed. In 2023, Black agreed to pay $62.5 million to the U.S. Virgin Islands to settle claims that some of his payments to Epstein were used to support Epstein’s illicit operations. Black has said publicly that his association with Epstein was a “horrible mistake” and has emphasized that had he known more about Epstein’s criminal activities, he would have cut ties sooner.

Although Black has described his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein as limited, records show that Epstein became one of the original trustees of the Leon Black Family Foundation in 1997. Black also contributed a handwritten poem to a 2003 “50th birthday book” for Epstein, an item that included greetings from other prominent figures. In January 2021, following an independent review by the law firm Dechert LLP that detailed the payments to Epstein, Black announced that he would step down as CEO of Apollo Global Management.

Black has faced several legal challenges connected to allegations of sexual misconduct, many of which reference Epstein. In 2023, “Jane Doe” filed a lawsuit claiming she was assaulted by Black at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse; in April 2025, her lawyers sought to withdraw from the case. In another case, accuser Cheri Pierson alleged rape but withdrew her lawsuit in early 2024. A separate suit filed by Guzel Ganieva, which accused Black of abuse and coercion involving Epstein, was dismissed in 2023. Black has consistently denied any wrongdoing.

Sources
Business Insider
The Daily Beast
ABC News
Wikipedia – Leon Black
Wikipedia – Apollo Global Management
EdSurge
Republic Report