February 13, 2025 | WASHINGTON, D.C. — Following today’s Senate HELP Committee’s confirmation hearing to consider Linda McMahon to serve as Secretary of Education, the Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) issued the following statement:
Statement from Aissa Canchola Bañez, Policy Director of SBPC:
“Linda McMahon’s testimony was nothing more than two hours worth of gaslighting. McMahon had the opportunity to state clearly and unequivocally that she will protect students, borrowers, and working families across the nation from the chaos that has already ensued as a result of President Trump and Elon Musk’s work to make their Project 2025 agenda the law of the land. She did not.
“When asked whether she would abide by a directive by President Trump that breaks a law, her nonanswer spoke volumes. It is clear that Linda McMahon’s blind loyalty to President Trump will guide her decision-making should she be confirmed to serve as the nation’s highest education official—and our students and communities will pay the price.
“Now more than ever, students, borrowers, and working families need an Education Secretary who will protect their interests, not the interests of private entities seeking to line their pockets off of our public education system. It is clear that Linda McMahon will not be that Education Secretary. We call on Senators to stand with students, educators, and working families across the nation and reject her nomination.”
Since the announcement of Linda McMahon’s nomination, the SBPC has consistently sounded the alarm that McMahon’s longtime loyalty to President Trump would make her a “rubber stamp” on the most harmful aspects of the Project 2025 agenda. SBPC also submitted a letter of opposition to Linda McMahon’s nomination, which was submitted into the Congressional record during the hearing.
Further Reading
SBPC letter to the Senate HELP Committee opposing Linda McMahon’s nomination: See Here
SBPC blog listing out 20 questions for HELP to ask Linda McMahon in her nomination hearing: 20 Questions for Linda McMahon After the Trump White House Blocks All Federal Agency Grants and Loans
SBPC blog outlining concerns with critical Trump cabinet nominees: Critical Trump Administration Nominees Should Raise Major Red Flags for Working Families with Student Debt
SBPC, Data for Progress, Groundwork Collaborative polling showing wide opposition to gutting student borrower protections: NEW POLL: Overwhelming, Bipartisan Majority Reject Cuts to the Student Loan Safety Net and Financial Aid Students and Families Rely On
Initial release of poll results showing voters oppose abolishing the U.S. Department of Education: New Poll Confirms: Trump’s Plan to Abolish Department of Education is Extremely Unpopular Among Voters
About Student Borrower Protection Center
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) is a nonprofit organization focused on eliminating the burden of student debt for millions of Americans. We engage in advocacy, policymaking, and litigation strategy to rein in industry abuses, protect borrowers’ rights, and advance racial and economic justice.
Learn more at protectborrowers.org or follow SBPC on Twitter @theSBPC.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query student safety. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query student safety. Sort by date Show all posts
Friday, February 14, 2025
Wednesday, April 30, 2025
The Role of U.S. Higher Education in Mass Surveillance: A Cornerstone of Authoritarianism and Fascism
In the digital age, surveillance has become a pervasive aspect of daily life. It reaches far beyond the government’s watchful eye; it infiltrates our personal spaces, our interactions, and even our educational institutions. In the United States, universities and colleges—typically seen as bastions of free thought and intellectual exploration—have, over the years, quietly embraced practices that align more with authoritarian surveillance than the fostering of academic freedom. The result is an unsettling convergence of education, technology, and control that deserves close scrutiny.
The Rise of Mass Surveillance in U.S. Higher Education
Mass surveillance is not a concept confined solely to government agencies or the private sector. U.S. colleges and universities have increasingly adopted surveillance technologies, often in ways that blur the lines between student safety, security, and governmental overreach. The methods used are diverse: from sophisticated digital monitoring of online activity to the installation of cameras throughout campuses, as well as the tracking of students’ movements and behaviors.
On-Campus Surveillance
Many campuses are equipped with thousands of security cameras, often without students' knowledge of the exact extent of their monitoring. These cameras track students' movements around buildings, dorms, and even outdoor spaces. Security personnel, working alongside private contractors, have access to this footage, creating a network of real-time surveillance. Additionally, some universities have partnered with police departments or government entities to share data from campus surveillance, effectively extending the government’s reach into spaces historically seen as separate from state control.
In some instances, universities have utilized facial recognition technology—a tool that, while growing in popularity among law enforcement and private corporations, is still highly controversial due to concerns about privacy, accuracy, and racial biases. Campuses like the University of California, Berkeley, and George Washington University have implemented or explored the use of facial recognition, drawing criticism from civil rights groups who argue that such technologies contribute to surveillance regimes that disproportionately target marginalized communities.
Digital Surveillance: Monitoring Online Activity
In the realm of digital surveillance, universities have also emerged as key players. The rapid digitization of academic spaces has made it easier for educational institutions to monitor and record students' online activities, including emails, internet browsing habits, and even participation in online discussions. These tools, ostensibly designed to protect students from online threats or cheating, can also be used to track the political views or social connections of students and faculty members.
University systems that monitor students' academic behavior are often integrated with third-party services that collect vast amounts of data. Companies like Google, which provide software for research and communication, have been instrumental in creating environments where personal data can be easily harvested and stored. As a result, students and faculty members are under constant scrutiny, even if they are unaware of the depth of data being collected on them.
Off-Campus Surveillance and Law Enforcement
While much of the surveillance happens on university grounds, the cooperation between educational institutions and law enforcement extends far beyond campus boundaries. Many universities share information with federal agencies like the FBI or local police departments, creating a synergy of surveillance that goes beyond the walls of academia. This collaboration is often justified as part of maintaining national security or preventing crimes, but it carries profound implications for privacy and civil liberties.
After the 9/11 attacks, for example, universities in the U.S. were encouraged to collaborate with federal intelligence agencies under the auspices of the USA PATRIOT Act and other anti-terrorism measures. This led to the surveillance of students’ political activities, associations, and even participation in protests. While much of this occurred covertly, the ramifications were far-reaching, particularly for marginalized groups who found themselves disproportionately surveilled due to their activism.
Surveillance of International Students: A First Step Toward Widespread Control
One of the most chilling aspects of surveillance on U.S. campuses is the specific targeting of international students. Historically, international students have been a vulnerable demographic in the context of surveillance and control. This began in earnest post-9/11, when the U.S. government imposed stricter regulations on foreign students, requiring universities to report on students' status, academic performance, and even their physical locations.
The Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) was established to track international students in real-time, linking student data to immigration and law enforcement agencies. While this system was presented as a means of ensuring national security, it effectively treated international students as suspects, placing them under heightened scrutiny. Universities, in turn, became instruments of surveillance, forced to comply with federal mandates to report any changes in a student's enrollment status, academic performance, or even the duration of their stay in the U.S.
For international students, this surveillance has been particularly invasive, as their movements—whether related to academic matters or personal lives—are constantly monitored by both their institutions and government entities. The stigma of being under the microscope contributes to a sense of alienation and powerlessness. It also encourages conformity, making it difficult for international students to freely express political or ideological dissent for fear of jeopardizing their academic status or immigration status.
The Threat of TPUSA’s Professor Watchlist
Another troubling element of surveillance within higher education is the growing trend of surveillance outside official university systems. Conservative student groups, particularly Turning Point USA (TPUSA), have taken it upon themselves to monitor and track the activities of professors whose political views they deem “liberal” or “left-wing.” One of TPUSA’s most controversial initiatives has been the creation of the Professor Watchlist, which compiles and publicly names professors accused of engaging in “liberal indoctrination” or promoting “liberal agendas.”
While TPUSA claims the Professor Watchlist is a tool to expose bias in academia, its purpose appears to be less about fostering academic debate and more about intimidating faculty members and curbing academic freedom. Professors listed on the watchlist are often subjected to harassment, threats, and, in some cases, professional repercussions, as conservative groups or donors seek to pressure universities into disciplining or firing faculty. The Watchlist represents a form of extrajudicial surveillance—non-governmental in origin but with highly political aims.
The real danger of such initiatives lies in their ability to undermine the independence of higher education. It is not just the professors listed who are impacted, but the entire academic community. Faculty members may begin to self-censor, avoiding controversial or politically sensitive topics for fear of being targeted, and students may find their ability to engage in free inquiry increasingly stifled.
The Professor Watchlist serves as a reminder that surveillance of academic institutions is not just the work of government agencies or private corporations; it is also deeply politicized, with various ideological groups using the tools of surveillance to exert control over education and the intellectual freedoms that it should represent.
Little Resistance: The Silence of Academia
Despite these troubling developments, resistance within academia has been minimal. Universities, which are supposed to serve as protectors of free speech, intellectual diversity, and civil liberties, have largely failed to challenge the growing surveillance apparatus both on and off their campuses. This silence is not without reason—many academic institutions have willingly participated in these surveillance efforts, citing concerns over campus security, student safety, and the desire to combat terrorism.
Additionally, many students and faculty members have become desensitized to surveillance. A generation raised in the digital age, where privacy is increasingly an afterthought and constant connectivity is the norm, may not fully grasp the implications of mass surveillance. Those who do speak out often find themselves at odds with institutional priorities or are silenced by threats of punishment, surveillance of their own activities, or other forms of retaliation.
The fear of retribution has also led to a chilling effect on dissent. Students who voice political opinions, especially those that challenge the status quo, may find themselves under increased scrutiny. This environment creates a culture where conformity reigns, and open discourse is stifled, not necessarily by overt repression, but by the omnipresent surveillance that discourages any behavior that might be deemed "out of line."
Mass Surveillance as a Tool of Authoritarianism and Fascism
The convergence of surveillance practices on college campuses with broader state interests should not be dismissed as incidental. Throughout history, mass surveillance has been a hallmark of authoritarian and fascist regimes. From Stalinist Russia to Nazi Germany, the power to monitor and control individuals through surveillance has been a tool used by oppressive governments to stifle dissent, control behavior, and consolidate power.
In a fascist regime, surveillance serves not just as a means of security, but as a tool of indoctrination and social control. The existence of surveillance constantly reminds individuals that they are being watched, creating a pervasive sense of fear and self-censorship. The same mechanism is increasingly visible in today’s U.S. higher education system, where students and faculty members may unconsciously internalize the need to comply with institutional norms, which are often shaped by external pressures from governmental and corporate entities.
The Implications for Democracy
The implications of this trend are far-reaching. When educational institutions no longer stand as a safe space for the free exchange of ideas, when they themselves become complicit in the surveillance of their own communities, it erodes the very foundation of democratic society. Free thought and intellectual exploration—the core tenets of higher education—cannot thrive in an atmosphere of constant monitoring and fear.
Mass surveillance on campuses also reinforces systemic inequalities. As surveillance technologies disproportionately affect marginalized groups—whether due to racial profiling, political dissent, or nationality—it contributes to a broader structure of control that undermines the principles of equal treatment and justice. In a society where the surveillance state extends into universities, it’s not hard to imagine a future where academic freedom becomes a thing of the past, with institutions serving instead as instruments of political and corporate control.
Conclusion
The role of U.S. higher education in the rise of mass surveillance—both on and off-campus—raises serious concerns about privacy, freedom, and the future of democratic values. Universities, which once stood as symbols of intellectual autonomy, are now complicit in the surveillance mechanisms that have come to define authoritarian and fascist regimes. The lack of widespread resistance from within academia only exacerbates the situation, highlighting the need for a renewed commitment to the values of free thought and privacy.
If we are to preserve the integrity of higher education as a space for critical thinking and dissent, we must confront the creeping normalization of surveillance in these institutions. It’s time for students, faculty, and administrators to take a stand, not just against the overt surveillance on campus, but against the creeping authoritarianism that it represents in the broader context of our society. The fight for academic freedom and privacy is not just a fight for the rights of students and educators—it’s a fight for the soul of democracy itself.
Wednesday, August 28, 2024
Campus Protests, Campus Safety, and the Student Imagination
According to the LA Times, students at Cal Berkeley, San Jose State, San
Francisco State, and the University of San Francisco plan to
hold coordinated protests on their campuses tomorrow. These actions are a continuation of this year's earlier protests against Israel's atrocities against Palestinians in Gaza--which have been backed by the United States, through arms deals and federal funding.
With the US-backed genocide expanding to the West Bank and Southern Lebanon, there will certainly be student resistance despite administrative and police efforts to make campus occupations and other forms of protest (even free speech and freedom of assembly) difficult.
The greatest threat so far from these protests has been to the reputations of elite universities and their endowments, rather than to campus safety. And the greatest perceived threat to administrators is that students and their allies have the imagination to resist in novel ways--without violence.
Students have already gained partial victories with a handful of universities
which have offered to review investment strategies complicit with genocide. These progressive schools include Brown University and San Francisco State. At the University of Michigan, pro-Palestinian students organized as the Shut it Down Party have won student elections.
Coordinated and Secret Crackdowns
The crackdown measures that schools have already made to reduce free speech and other freedoms, and to stoke fear, are too numerous to list. Some of these measures, like increased surveillance are not even known by students, faculty, staff, and community folks. Just understanding that secret mass surveillance is possible helps administrators who want to quell good trouble.
What are the real threats to campus safety?
We hope these protests (and any other actions) will be nonviolent and have published a list of nonviolent methods for resistance as a starting point for discussion. Violence is not a good excuse even in crackdowns of this type, and it's a losing strategy for all sides--other than the right wing--who want chaos and hope to bait others. It takes great planning, discipline, and strategy not to take the bait. At the same time, we hope campus administrators will take the problems of sexual assault, hate crimes and other forms of violence, as well as the threats of mass shootings, more seriously than they have.
Related links:
Democratic Protests on Campus: Modeling the Better World We Seek (Annelise Orleck)
Methods of Student Nonviolent Resistance
Wikipedia Community Documents Pro-Palestinian Protests on University and College Campuses
Dangerous Spaces: Sexual Assault and Other Forms of Violence On and Off Campus
One Fascism or Two?: The Reemergence of "Fascism(s)" in US Higher Education
A People's History of Higher Education in the US?Friday, February 21, 2025
If you report on US colleges and universities, get to know these 19 higher education databases
No matter what issue you’re covering on the higher education beat, your story will be stronger if you ground it in high-quality data. Fortunately for journalists, government agencies and academic researchers have gathered data on an array of topics and made it available online for free. You just need to know where to find it.
That’s why we created this tip sheet. It spotlights 19 higher education databases we think you ought to know about. This list is not meant to be exhaustive. We included databases that will help journalists report on some of the most common and pressing higher education issues.
Note that most of these databases are the projects of federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and National Science Foundation. We’ll update this list periodically. Please bookmark it and share it with colleagues because it’s sure to come in handy.
1. College Navigator
This searchable database, created by the National Center for Education Statistics, provides basic information on nearly 7,000 U.S. colleges and universities. Use it to look up information about an institution’s admission rate, tuition, undergraduate enrollment, academic programs, athletic programs and other characteristics. You can also compare institutions.
The National Center for Education Statistics, commonly referred to as NCES, is part of the Institute of Education Sciences at the U.S. Department of Education.
2. DataLab
Journalists can use this online platform, another NCES project, to find detailed information on various topics across K-12 education and higher education. Sift through decades of data that the NCES has collected on college costs, student demographics, student debt, faculty demographics, faculty salaries, student graduation and dropout rates, and other subjects.
DataLab’s Tables Library contains more than 8,000 data tables published by the NCES. Journalists who are comfortable working with data can use the platform’s PowerStats tool to create data visualizations and run linear and logistic regressions.
3. Data.gov
You’ll find thousands of government data sets and data-heavy reports here -- the federal government’s open data site. You can search for education data by location and government agency as well as by topic category and dataset format.
4. Campus Security Data Analysis Cutting Tool
Use this higher education database, maintained by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education, to find information on crime at U.S. colleges and universities that receive federal funding. You can look at three years of statistics for a single school or generate reports to examine trends across schools.
Crimes that institutions report annually to the federal government include murder, aggravated assault, rape, hate crimes, domestic violence, motor vehicle theft and violations of state or local liquor laws. Schools also must report arrests as well as any disciplinary action taken against students accused of certain crimes.
5. Official Cohort Default Rate Search
For student loan default rates, check out this higher education database, which is maintained by Federal Student Aid, an office of the U.S. Department of Education. You can search default rates by state, city, institution, institution type and degree program.
6. U.S. Office for Civil Rights pending cases database
This is a national database of K-12 schools, colleges and universities that are being investigated by the federal Office for Civil Rights, a division of the U.S. Department of Education that investigates discrimination complaints. Here you can find information on investigations of alleged Title IX and Title VI violations. Title IX is a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination at K-12 schools, colleges and universities that receive federal financial assistance. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin.
7. Healthy Minds Study
This research database houses data collected as part of the Healthy Minds Study, an annual survey that asks college students about their mental health and their school environment, including campus safety, peer support and mental health services. More than 850,000 people at more than 600 colleges and universities have completed the survey since its launch in 2007.
The principal investigators of the Healthy Minds Study are researchers at the University of California-Los Angeles, University of Michigan, Wayne State University and Boston University.
8. CIRCLE
Tufts University’s Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement -- commonly known as CIRCLE -- has created several online data tools journalists can use to obtain data for stories about young voters and civic engagement on college campuses. For example, its Youth Voting and Civic Engagement in America data tool allows journalists to examine the voting habits of young adults by state, county or congressional district.
9. Retraction Watch
If you’re looking into allegations of research fraud or misconduct, Retraction Watch can help. It maintains a database of retracted scientific papers that reporters can use to search for retractions connected to a specific researcher, university or research organization. There’s also a user guide. Retraction Watch’s parent organization is the nonprofit Center for Scientific Integrity.
10. Nonprofit Explorer
Use this database, created by ProPublica, to look up tax returns and Form 990 filings for almost 2 million tax-exempt organizations, including non-profit colleges and universities. Form 990 filings contain information on an organization’s annual revenue, sources of revenue, expenses, and the names and salaries of its top executives.
11. Community College Research Center
The Community College Research Center’s website offers a variety of interactive platforms that allow journalists to explore data on U.S. community colleges and their students. For example, one focuses on community college finances during the pandemic. Another focuses on dual enrollment programs, which allow high school students to enroll at local colleges to earn college credits. The Community College Research Center is located at Columbia University.
12. Minority-Serving Institutions Data Project
This project provides data on minority-serving institutions, or MSIs. Some of these colleges and universities were founded specifically to serve racial minorities -- for example, historically Black colleges and universities only served Black students for decades. Many MSIs are historically white institutions where enrollment has grown more racially and ethnically diverse over time.
13. Association of American Medical Colleges
The “Data & Reports” section of the Association of American Medical Colleges’ website offers a variety of reports and datasets on medical school funding, applicants, students, faculty and tuition. It also provides information on topics such as research lab productivity and medical students’ experiences with sexual harassment.
14. American Bar Association
The American Bar Association provides reports and spreadsheets featuring data on U.S. law schools, law school enrollment and law students’ bar passage rates in the “Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar” of its website. It also provides reports on trends related to tuition, student and faculty demographics and student-faculty ratios.
15. College Board
Go to the College Board’s website for data and reports on the SAT college-entrance exam as well as the Advanced Placement program, which provides college-level curricula and exams for use at high schools worldwide. The College Board, a nonprofit organization that administers both, collects and makes public a variety of data on AP exam scores, SAT scores, students who take the AP exam, students who take the SAT and how both programs have grown over time.
16. GI Bill Comparison Tool
Journalists can use this U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs database to compare the GI Bill benefits offered at individual trade schools, higher education institutions and employers across the U.S. The GI Bill helps U.S. military veterans and their family members pay for college or for personal expenses while training for a job.
17. Higher Education Research and Development Survey
Each year, the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics conducts a census of colleges and universities that spend at least $150,000 on research and development. The center, part of the National Science Foundation, publishes data tables and reports on the results of its Higher Education Research and Development Survey. Journalists can use them to find information on how much money institutions have spent doing research in different fields, their sources of research funding and how much schools spent on researcher salaries versus equipment, software and other expenses.
18. EdWorkingPapers
EdWorkingPapers is a searchable database of academic working papers on a variety of K-12 education and higher education topics. Anyone can read these papers for free thanks to this joint project of Brown University’s Annenberg Institute for School Reform and Stanford University’s Systems Change Advancing Learning and Equity initiative.
19. Education Resources Information Center
Commonly referred to as ERIC, the Education Resources Information Center is a searchable database of education research and information found in academic journals, books and government reports. While it’s free to use ERIC, which is sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences at the U.S. Department of Education, journalists might need subscriptions to access many journal articles and book chapters.
This article first appeared on The Journalist's Resource and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Thursday, March 13, 2025
States, Suing Trump Over Gutting of Education Dept., Cite Threat of Predatory College Abuses (David Halperin)
Twenty-one Democratic state attorneys general sued President Trump and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon today, 48 hours after the Department of Education announced it was firing more than 1,300 employees, which, combined with previously Trump-Musk efforts to cull the staff, reduced the employee roster to less than half of the 4000+ person team that was working as of January.
The 53-page complaint, filed in federal court in Massachusetts, alleges that the staff reductions are illegal and unconstitutional, because they are “equivalent to incapacitating key, statutorily-mandated functions of the Department.” The AGs say that although McMahon has authority from Congress to restructure the Department, she is “not permitted to eliminate or disrupt functions required by statute, nor can she transfer the department’s responsibilities to another agency outside of its statutory authorization.”
Among the federal statutes that the state AGs contend will be undermined by this week’s staff cuts are those covering higher education, including the Department’s obligations to ensure that federal student grants and loans may be used only at colleges and universities that provide quality educations and comply with the law. The complaint notes that the Department is charged with ensuring that colleges receiving federal aid are financially responsible, that they submit to financial audits, and that they provide adequate counseling to students concerning debt management.
The AGs also note that the Department is required to review and approve private college accrediting agencies, because under the law only schools approved by Department-recognized accreditors are eligible for federal student aid. Without that process, the AGs warn, “institutions of higher education may engage in profit-seeking behaviors without relating any educational benefits to students.”
The AGs might have added that the cuts will undermine the capacity of the Department to directly investigate colleges that engage in predatory and deceptive behavior. Data released by the Department shows the largest number of layoffs — 326 people — were at the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA), which oversees student lending and school compliance with legal obligations not to mislead and abuse students.
The Department of Education’s higher education accountability efforts over decades have often been half-hearted and ineffectual; despite the scores of staff assigned to overseeing colleges, many students, and hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars, have been directed to deceptive, poor-quality schools that have left many students worse off than when they started. But gutting these efforts to the degree suggested by this week’s staff reductions would make matters much worse. And the first-term higher education record of President Trump, guided by Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and her aide Diane Auer Jones, was heavily skewed in favor of slashing accountability rules and enforcement, providing no reason to be optimistic that an aim of slashing the staff this year is to improve accountability.
The cuts would also undermine core Department responsibilities in K-12 education, civil rights, disability rights, privacy rights, campus safety, and the student loan portfolio.
Secretary McMahon is publicly insisting that everything will be fine and more efficient with the reduced and reorganized staff. But, as the new lawsuit from the attorneys general notes, McMahon said on Tuesday that the firing are the “first step” on the road to a “total shutdown” of the Department.
The attorneys general who filed the complaint are from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, Vermont and the District of Columbia.
Former Department officials and education advocates plan to rally Friday morning at 8 am outside Department of Education headquarters in Washington to protest the mass firings and plans to shut down the agency.
The 53-page complaint, filed in federal court in Massachusetts, alleges that the staff reductions are illegal and unconstitutional, because they are “equivalent to incapacitating key, statutorily-mandated functions of the Department.” The AGs say that although McMahon has authority from Congress to restructure the Department, she is “not permitted to eliminate or disrupt functions required by statute, nor can she transfer the department’s responsibilities to another agency outside of its statutory authorization.”
Among the federal statutes that the state AGs contend will be undermined by this week’s staff cuts are those covering higher education, including the Department’s obligations to ensure that federal student grants and loans may be used only at colleges and universities that provide quality educations and comply with the law. The complaint notes that the Department is charged with ensuring that colleges receiving federal aid are financially responsible, that they submit to financial audits, and that they provide adequate counseling to students concerning debt management.
The AGs also note that the Department is required to review and approve private college accrediting agencies, because under the law only schools approved by Department-recognized accreditors are eligible for federal student aid. Without that process, the AGs warn, “institutions of higher education may engage in profit-seeking behaviors without relating any educational benefits to students.”
The AGs might have added that the cuts will undermine the capacity of the Department to directly investigate colleges that engage in predatory and deceptive behavior. Data released by the Department shows the largest number of layoffs — 326 people — were at the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA), which oversees student lending and school compliance with legal obligations not to mislead and abuse students.
The Department of Education’s higher education accountability efforts over decades have often been half-hearted and ineffectual; despite the scores of staff assigned to overseeing colleges, many students, and hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars, have been directed to deceptive, poor-quality schools that have left many students worse off than when they started. But gutting these efforts to the degree suggested by this week’s staff reductions would make matters much worse. And the first-term higher education record of President Trump, guided by Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and her aide Diane Auer Jones, was heavily skewed in favor of slashing accountability rules and enforcement, providing no reason to be optimistic that an aim of slashing the staff this year is to improve accountability.
The cuts would also undermine core Department responsibilities in K-12 education, civil rights, disability rights, privacy rights, campus safety, and the student loan portfolio.
Secretary McMahon is publicly insisting that everything will be fine and more efficient with the reduced and reorganized staff. But, as the new lawsuit from the attorneys general notes, McMahon said on Tuesday that the firing are the “first step” on the road to a “total shutdown” of the Department.
The attorneys general who filed the complaint are from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, Vermont and the District of Columbia.
Former Department officials and education advocates plan to rally Friday morning at 8 am outside Department of Education headquarters in Washington to protest the mass firings and plans to shut down the agency.
Sunday, June 1, 2025
Veterans Left Behind: How Oversight Failures in VA-Approved Education Programs Put Thousands at Risk (Michael S. Hainline)
[Editor's note: Michael S. Hainline is a member of Restore the GI Bill for Veterans.]
Veterans across the country rely on the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) approval system to ensure their education and job training programs are safe, legitimate, and lead to meaningful employment. Yet, thousands have been failed by a system riddled with oversight gaps, conflicting interests, and regulatory loopholes that allow unsafe equipment, poor training, and deceptive schools to remain approved — often at great personal and financial cost to the veterans and taxpayers.
I know this all too well. As a former military police officer who trained as a truck driver in 2016 under a VA-approved program, I was exposed to dangerous, poorly maintained equipment that ultimately caused me to lose the use of my right arm for over a year, a disability I will carry for life.
Despite repeated complaints to the program staff and the assigned State Approving Agency (SAA), the official body responsible for oversight, my concerns were dismissed, and no corrective action was taken until years later — and only after significant evidence surfaced.
Unsafe Equipment Ignored
During my class, veteran student Mike and I, and non-veteran students Dustin & Richard, discovered that the landing gear on the 1977 Stoughton trailer assigned for training was missing an axle and four wheels. I reported this to the staff, who admitted the equipment was faulty but took no timely corrective action. A veteran student later informed me that the school replaced the landing gear on a similar 1987 Great Dane trailer sometime after our class ended, contradicting official reports submitted to the VA and state approving agencies that claimed no issues existed.
To confirm these claims, I located the trailer used in program advertising and compared photos taken during and after our training. The landing gear had indeed been replaced—freshly painted and altered, as confirmed by Great Dane Trailers’ manufacturer.
The trucks used for training showed similar problems. According to Vehicle Identification Numbers, three trucks had modifications—such as frame cutting between tandem axles—that Daimler Trucks North America (the manufacturer) neither recommended nor approved. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration guidelines were not followed, creating additional safety concerns, per conversations with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
Systemic Oversight Failures
These issues highlight a broader problem: the State Approving Agencies, under contract with the VA, are failing to provide adequate oversight and ensure program quality. The VA Office of Inspector General’s 2018 report (OIG Report #16-00862-179) found that 86% of SAAs did not sufficiently oversee educational programs to ensure only eligible, high-quality programs were approved. The report estimated that without reforms, the VA could improperly pay out $2.3 billion over five years to subpar or fraudulent institutions.
Alarmingly, the VA Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) is restricted in its ability to question or audit the reports submitted by SAAs. There is no mechanism for veterans to challenge or appeal SAA findings, effectively leaving veterans powerless within a system that is supposed to protect them.
Veteran Service Organizations’ Silence
I sought help from veteran service organizations but found little interest in addressing these critical problems. The American Legion initially responded to my outreach in 2017, engaging in conversations and phone calls. However, within months, communication ceased without explanation. Attempts to meet with American Legion leadership and their legislative contacts, including Dr. Joe Wescott—an influential consultant on veterans’ education—were unsuccessful. Dr. Wescott dismissed concerns about the integrity of the SAA’s targeted risk-based reviews, citing that schools typically fix problems before SAAs visit, and failed to investigate conflicts of interest between report authors and SAA officials.
At the 2024 American Legion convention, a planned meeting between a fellow veteran and Legion leadership was abruptly canceled. Meanwhile, other veteran groups such as Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), Disabled American Veterans (DAV), and Veterans Education Success (VES) showed engagement, but the American Legion and Student Veterans of America remained unresponsive.
The American Legion’s own 2016 Resolution #304 warned of the exact issues I and countless other veterans have endured: deceptive practices by some education providers, poor accreditation standards, and underfunded and understaffed SAAs unable to enforce proper oversight.
A Cycle of Scandal
Congressional staff admitted privately that veterans’ education legislation rarely progresses without support from key players like Dr. Wescott and the National Association of State Approving Agencies (NASAA), whose leaders have repeatedly declined to meet with veterans raising concerns. These complex relationships between SAAs, VA officials, veteran groups, and legislators perpetuate a “cycle of scandal” that leaves veterans vulnerable and taxpayers footing the bill.
In 2023, a combat veteran attending the same program I did reported similar frustrations: only one of three trucks was roadworthy, severely limiting practical training time for a full class of students. Despite numerous documented complaints, the NASAA president refused to meet or discuss these issues.
The Human Cost
Beyond financial waste and bureaucratic failures, real human harm occurs. My injury, caused by training on unsafe equipment, robbed me of a year of mobility and continues to affect my life. Thousands of veterans have lost their G.I. Bill benefits, incurred debt for worthless or limited degrees, or been misled about their job prospects after completing programs approved by the very agencies meant to protect them.
The internet is rife with investigative reports exposing waste, fraud, and abuse in VA-approved programs. Headlines like “School Scammers Are Robbing Veterans and the Government Blind” and “For-Profit Colleges Exploit Veterans’ G.I. Bill Benefits” are far too common.
A Call for Reform
Despite these glaring failures, meaningful reform remains elusive. The VA OIG report and numerous investigations call for increased accountability, transparency, and cooperation between the VBA, SAAs, veteran service organizations, and Congress. Veterans deserve a system that genuinely safeguards their education and wellbeing.
My fellow former veteran students and I have organized online and turned to media outlets to break the silence. It’s time for the public and policymakers to hear our stories—not just slogans and “catchy” legislative titles that fail to restore lost benefits or improve program quality.
We veterans demand change—because we have earned more than empty promises and a broken system that leaves us behind.
Michael S. Hainline is a veteran and advocate living in Pensacola, Florida. He served in active duty and reserve military components and now works to expose the failures of oversight in VA-approved education and job training programs. He can be reached at hainline1962@gmail.com.
Saturday, February 1, 2025
Higher Education Inquirer: Increasingly Relevant
The Higher Education Inquirer continues to grow. Last month the number of views rose to more than 45,000. And our total number of views has increased to more than 440,000. While we had added advertisements, we have not received any SEO help, and we do not pay Google for ads.
We believe our growth stems largely from our increasing relevance and in our truth telling, which other higher education news outlets are unwilling to do in these times.
Our devotion to transparency, accountability, and value for our readers guides us.
We invite a diverse group of guest authors who are willing to share their truths. The list includes academics from various disciplines, advocates, activists, journalists, consultants, and whistleblowers. We back up all of this work with data and critical analysis, irrespective of politics and social conventions. We are willing to challenge the higher education establishment, including trustees, donors, and university presidents.
Our articles covering student loan debt, academic labor, nonviolent methods of protest, and freedom of speech are unparalleled. And we are unafraid about including other issues that matter to our readers, including stories and videos about mental health, student safety, technology (such as artificial intelligence), academic cheating, and the nature of work. And matters of war, peace, democracy, and climate change.
Our focus, though mainly on US higher education, also has an international appeal.
Some of our work takes years to produce, through careful documentation of primary and secondary sources, database analysis, and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. We share all of this information for everyone to see at no cost.
Of course, we could not operate without all your voices. We welcome all your voices. Something few other sources are willing to do.
Monday, April 14, 2025
American Universities Complicit in Genocide, Again
As universities across the United States respond with increasing repression to student-led protests against the genocide in Palestine, historical parallels emerge that challenge the very principles of academic freedom and moral responsibility. The aggressive crackdowns—ranging from mass arrests to administrative threats—echo disturbing precedents from The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower by historian Stephen H. Norwood. The book exposes how many American universities, particularly in the 1930s, were complicit in Nazi ideology through appeasement, censorship, and the suppression of anti-fascist voices. The current treatment of pro-Palestinian student activists suggests that history is, once again, repeating itself.
The Suppression of Moral Dissent in Higher Education
Norwood’s research demonstrates how elite U.S. universities—including Harvard, Columbia, and Yale—maintained diplomatic and academic relationships with Nazi Germany, even as the regime persecuted Jews, socialists, and other marginalized groups. Student activists who sought to protest these ties were ignored, censored, or dismissed as “radicals.” The pattern is eerily similar today: pro-Palestinian students, many of whom are calling attention to potential war crimes in Gaza and the West Bank, are met with suspensions, arrests, and a media narrative that frames them as dangerous or disruptive.
This is not simply an issue of campus policy. It is an indication of how institutions of higher learning align themselves with power—whether it be the Nazi government in the 1930s or the Netanyahu government today—at the expense of justice and free expression.
The Influence of Financial and Political Interests
One of Norwood’s most damning revelations was how American universities welcomed Nazi officials on campus, accepted funding from German sources, and ignored early reports of persecution. Today, many of these same institutions maintain deep financial ties to Israel, including research partnerships, donor influence, and endowment investments in companies linked to the Israeli military-industrial complex.
This financial entanglement shapes institutional responses to protest. Instead of engaging with the moral and legal arguments posed by students—who cite documented reports from the UN, Human Rights Watch, and other credible organizations—university administrators call in police forces, disband student groups, and issue vague statements about maintaining "campus order." Just as in the 1930s, universities prioritize political and economic alliances over ethical accountability.
The Criminalization of Campus Activism
Norwood’s book describes how students protesting Nazi ties were accused of being “unruly” or “disruptive,” justifying administrative crackdowns. Today, students calling for an end to U.S. complicity in Israel’s actions face similar character assassinations, often being labeled as “terrorist sympathizers” or threats to campus safety.
Recent crackdowns have seen:
-
Mass arrests of peaceful demonstrators, including those engaging in sit-ins and teach-ins.
-
Surveillance and doxxing of students and faculty who express pro-Palestinian views.
-
Increased administrative pressure, including suspensions, expulsions, and threats to scholarships or visas for international students.
The use of state power—often in coordination with local police, federal agencies, and even private security firms—mirrors historical instances where universities acted as enforcers of political orthodoxy rather than defenders of intellectual freedom.
What This Means for US Higher Education
If universities continue down this path, they risk further eroding their credibility as spaces for critical inquiry and moral debate. Just as history judges those who remained silent—or complicit—during the rise of fascism, future generations will scrutinize how today’s institutions responded to calls for justice in Palestine.
The lesson from The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower is clear: universities have a choice. They can either stand on the side of truth and academic freedom or become enforcers of state violence and repression. The students protesting today, much like those who opposed fascism in the 1930s, are asking their institutions to make that choice. The question is whether universities will listen—or if history will once again record their failure.
Thursday, January 30, 2025
The Stop Campus Hazing Act: What You Need to Know (Clery Center)
UPDATE: The Stop Campus Hazing Act was signed into law by President Biden on December 23, 2024. We have edited the below blog to reflect this update.
The Stop Campus Hazing Act (SCHA) amends section 485(f) of the Higher Education Act, otherwise known as the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act). Notably, the bill also changes the name of the Clery Act to the “Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Act”, representing the Act’s evolution in addressing broad campus safety needs.
Clery Center partnered with Gary and Julie DeVercelly, whose son, Gary DeVercelly, Jr. died by hazing in 2007, to begin advocating for federal anti-hazing legislation in 2014. These efforts led to the introduction of the Report and Education About Campus Hazing (REACH) Act in 2017, which was combined with elements of the END ALL Hazing Act to create the Stop Campus Hazing Act.
What will campuses be required to do?
The Stop Campus Hazing Act has three primary components: Inclusion of hazing statistics in annual security reports: Colleges and universities will need to include statistics for hazing incidents that were reported to campus security authorities or local law enforcement, as defined by SCHA, in their annual security reports.
Implementation of hazing policies, including those specific to hazing prevention: Colleges and universities will be required to have a hazing policy with information on how to make a report of hazing and the process used to investigate hazing incidents. They must also have a policy that addresses hazing prevention and awareness programs, which includes a description of research-informed campus-wide prevention programs and primary prevention strategies.
Compilation of a Campus Hazing Transparency Report: Each institution must compile and publish on a prominent location of their public website a hazing transparency report that summarizes findings concerning any student organization found to be in violation of the institution’s standards of conduct related to hazing. The report will include: The name of the student organization; A general description of the violation that resulted in a finding of responsibility; and Related dates (the date of the alleged incident, the date of the initiation of the investigation, the date the investigation ended with a finding, and the date the institution provided notice to the organization of the finding).
When will implementation start?
The timeline for implementation is as follows: January 1, 2025: Institutions should begin collecting hazing statistics to include in the annual security report.
June 23, 2025: Hazing policies must be in place.
July 1, 2025: Institutions must have a process for documenting violations of the institution’s standards of conduct relating to hazing.
December 23, 2025: The Campus Hazing Transparency Report, which includes the violations that institutions begin documenting in July, must be publicly available. The Campus Hazing Transparency Report must be updated at least two times a year.
October 1, 2026: Hazing statistics will first be included in the 2026 annual security report (2025 statistics).
How can I start planning for these changes?Register for our three-part Stop Campus Hazing Act training series:February 26 - Session 1: Hazing as a Clery Act Crime Statistic
March 5 - Session 2: Hazing Prevention Programming Requirements
March 12 - Session 3:Campus Hazing Transparency Report
Review your process for notifying and training campus security authorities on their responsibilities, as well as forms or systems used for incident reporting. Plan to update these materials to include hazing.
Determine what hazing policies already exist on campus and whether they address hazing prevention and awareness.
Bring together roles that will be involved in implementation of these requirements (including conduct professionals, public safety, and prevention educators) to discuss what policies or procedures may need to be updated.
View Clery Center's and StopHazing's free webinar to learn more about the Stop Campus Hazing Act.
Stay tuned for more information about our training series launching this winter.
The Stop Campus Hazing Act (SCHA) amends section 485(f) of the Higher Education Act, otherwise known as the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act). Notably, the bill also changes the name of the Clery Act to the “Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Act”, representing the Act’s evolution in addressing broad campus safety needs.
Clery Center partnered with Gary and Julie DeVercelly, whose son, Gary DeVercelly, Jr. died by hazing in 2007, to begin advocating for federal anti-hazing legislation in 2014. These efforts led to the introduction of the Report and Education About Campus Hazing (REACH) Act in 2017, which was combined with elements of the END ALL Hazing Act to create the Stop Campus Hazing Act.
What will campuses be required to do?
The Stop Campus Hazing Act has three primary components: Inclusion of hazing statistics in annual security reports: Colleges and universities will need to include statistics for hazing incidents that were reported to campus security authorities or local law enforcement, as defined by SCHA, in their annual security reports.
Implementation of hazing policies, including those specific to hazing prevention: Colleges and universities will be required to have a hazing policy with information on how to make a report of hazing and the process used to investigate hazing incidents. They must also have a policy that addresses hazing prevention and awareness programs, which includes a description of research-informed campus-wide prevention programs and primary prevention strategies.
Compilation of a Campus Hazing Transparency Report: Each institution must compile and publish on a prominent location of their public website a hazing transparency report that summarizes findings concerning any student organization found to be in violation of the institution’s standards of conduct related to hazing. The report will include: The name of the student organization; A general description of the violation that resulted in a finding of responsibility; and Related dates (the date of the alleged incident, the date of the initiation of the investigation, the date the investigation ended with a finding, and the date the institution provided notice to the organization of the finding).
When will implementation start?
The timeline for implementation is as follows: January 1, 2025: Institutions should begin collecting hazing statistics to include in the annual security report.
June 23, 2025: Hazing policies must be in place.
July 1, 2025: Institutions must have a process for documenting violations of the institution’s standards of conduct relating to hazing.
December 23, 2025: The Campus Hazing Transparency Report, which includes the violations that institutions begin documenting in July, must be publicly available. The Campus Hazing Transparency Report must be updated at least two times a year.
October 1, 2026: Hazing statistics will first be included in the 2026 annual security report (2025 statistics).
How can I start planning for these changes?Register for our three-part Stop Campus Hazing Act training series:February 26 - Session 1: Hazing as a Clery Act Crime Statistic
March 5 - Session 2: Hazing Prevention Programming Requirements
March 12 - Session 3:Campus Hazing Transparency Report
Review your process for notifying and training campus security authorities on their responsibilities, as well as forms or systems used for incident reporting. Plan to update these materials to include hazing.
Determine what hazing policies already exist on campus and whether they address hazing prevention and awareness.
Bring together roles that will be involved in implementation of these requirements (including conduct professionals, public safety, and prevention educators) to discuss what policies or procedures may need to be updated.
View Clery Center's and StopHazing's free webinar to learn more about the Stop Campus Hazing Act.
Stay tuned for more information about our training series launching this winter.
Thursday, October 3, 2024
“Repression on Grounds: A Virtual Town Hall on May 4 and Its Aftermath” (Faculty for Justice in Palestine)
(Charlottesville, VA)
In the aftermath of the violent repression of the encampment protests at UVa in May by police and administration, and with issues about first amendment rights at UVa still unresolved, faculty at the University of Virginia will host: “Repression on Grounds: A Virtual Town Hall on May 4 and Its Aftermath” on Sunday October 6 from 11 am -12:30 pm EDT. The town hall will be virtual.
Participants can register for the event here: https://tinyurl.com/56r54kus
The town hall will address violent break up of the pro-Palestinian encampment on May 4, 2024
by military-style police in riot gear and its aftermath. But rather than seeing this as a defeat,
organizers will share what they have learned since the summer and chart a path forward for
pro-Palestinian activism at UVA and nationally, including renewed calls for divestment from
Israel and genocide. The town hall will address:
- What happened on 5/4;
- What has happened since 5/4;
- Suggested steps moving forward;
- National framing;
- Disclosure, divestment & how to get involved
- Q&A
As Israel’s genocide in Gaza intensifies to include Lebanon, members of Faculty for Justice in
Palestine and allies will highlight the moral urgency of the moment and discuss the role student,
faculty, staff, and community activism and pressure has to do in achieving an arms embargo
against Israel and charting a path towards Palestinian sovereignty. With free speech and
academic freedom under fire across the nation and in the Commonwealth, It’s time to hear from
faculty, staff and students what is really going on with regards to freedom of speech, academic
freedom and protest rights at Jefferson’s University.
As we enter into another academic year, questions of politics, both domestic and international,
are central to the work we do at the university. It is critically important that faculty, staff, and
students maintain the right to speak freely on these issues without risking the kinds of retaliation
they've seen in the last several months.
Contact: Faculty for Justice in Palestine, UVA. fjp.uva@gmail.com
Related links:
Elite Universities on Lockdown. Protestors Regroup.
What caused 70 US universities to arrest protesting students while many more did not?
Campus Protests, Campus Safety, and the Student Imagination
Democratic Protests on Campus: Modeling the Better World We Seek (Annelise Orleck)
Methods of Student Nonviolent Resistance
Wikipedia Community Documents Pro-Palestinian Protests on University and College Campuses
One Fascism or Two?: The Reemergence of "Fascism(s)" in US Higher Education
Friday, October 25, 2024
The "Education Not Agitation" Act Seeks Crackdown on Campus Protestors
Republican Greg Murphy (MD) has introduced legislation in Congress to crack down on American college campuses, and to support the restriction of freedom of assembly and other Constitutional rights. The legislation is titled the Education Not Agitation Act.
This legislation disqualifies individuals who are convicted of certain criminal offenses from receiving education related tax benefits including the American Opportunity Tax Credit, the Lifetime Learning Tax Credit, and the deduction on student loan interest.
Specifically, if an individual is convicted of unlawful assembly, rioting, trespassing, vandalism, battery, or battery on a law enforcement officer while conducting a protest at an institute of higher education, they will be disqualified from receiving these tax benefits.
Unlawful assembly is the legal term to describe a group of people with the mutual intent of deliberate disturbance of the peace. Trespassing is knowingly entering another owners' property or land without permission. Vandalism is the intentional destruction or defacement of another person's property. These acts, however, are subject to the varying opinions of law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and juries.
The threat of arrest and use of force, detention, school suspensions, deportations, and other police and administrative powers may be enough to prevent peaceful protests or reduce the power of the protestors. Some universities and state governments have already acted to reduce and restrict freedom of speech and assembly on campus.
Legislation like the Education Not Agitation Act further sanctions those who may have valid reasons for resistance on existential matters like war and peace, genocide, and catastrophic climate change. History (hopefully) will record that.
Related links:
Democratic Protests on Campus: Modeling the Better World We Seek (Annelise Orleck)
Methods of Student Nonviolent Resistance
Wikipedia Community Documents Pro-Palestinian Protests on University and College Campuses
One Fascism or Two?: The Reemergence of "Fascism(s)" in US Higher Education
A People's History of Higher Education in the US
How Would Trump's Plans for Mass Deportations Affect US Higher Education?Thursday, September 26, 2024
Elite Universities on Lockdown. Protestors Regroup.
[Updated 9-29-24]
Elite universities have changed their policies to significantly reduce free speech and free assembly. In response, college students and their faculty allies are having to regroup and rethink how they protest the US-Israel war against Palestine as it expands in the Middle East. On the establishment side, will universities further crack down on students and faculty, wherever peaceful protests might occur?
Campus "Crime and Punishment"
Elite universities like UCLA have dramatically reduced the areas that students can speak and assemble freely, restricting protesters to free speech zones, a common tactic used by the US government during the War on Terror. Universities have also upped surveillance measures and punished students involved in protests, with limited due process.
The visible resistance may now be limited on campuses where students have been detained, assaulted, arrested, expelled, and banned from campus. Foreign students wary of facing deportation may also be keeping quiet, publicly.
In California, Governor Gavin Newsom has signed a bill to update public university codes of conduct "and train students on how to protest
with civility, a response to pro-Palestinian demonstrations that erupted
across the state last spring." The bill was opposed by pro-Palestinian Groups and the ACLU.
Protests Off Campus
There have been a number of protests against the US-backed war that has expanded from Gaza, to the Occupied West Bank, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and Iran. Demonstrations have been held in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, DC and other college towns, including Iowa City, home of the University of Iowa. Those protests will be closely observed and documented by law enforcement.
With the help of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the fossil fuel lobby, states have already crafted anti-protest legislation to reduce public free speech and free assembly. According to the UK Guardian, 45 states have considered new anti-protest legislation since 2017.
Protests on Campus
Over the last week, there were small protests at Penn State University and the University of Arizona. The Penn State demonstration, which had about 60 attendees, was supported by Penn State Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), the Student Committee for Defense and Solidarity (SCDS), the Muslim Students’ Association (MSA), the United Socialists at Penn State (USPSU) and the People's Defense Front - Northern Appalachia. The impromptu Arizona protest was set up by the Party for Socialism and Liberation. At Cornell University, about 100 students protested a career fair that included defense contractors Boeing and L3 Harris. It's not surprising that these demonstrations would be small, given recent crackdowns across the country.
Collaboration Between Elite Schools and Law Enforcement
Will elite schools work with law enforcement at the local, state, federal, and international level to further restrict free speech and freedom of assembly? And university administrators try to quell dissent, will students be more harshly disciplined for planning and engaging in peaceful protests, of any type, on and off campus?
Related links:
Democratic Protests on Campus: Modeling the Better World We Seek (Annelise Orleck)
Methods of Student Nonviolent Resistance
Wikipedia Community Documents Pro-Palestinian Protests on University and College Campuses
One Fascism or Two?: The Reemergence of "Fascism(s)" in US Higher Education
A People's History of Higher Education in the USThursday, April 10, 2025
Trump Administration Clamps Down on Free Speech at US Universities
When the Trump administration announced in 2019 that it would protect free speech on college campuses, many students expected more room for open dialogue and critical debate. Instead, what followed was a pattern of surveillance, intimidation, defunding, and deportation—especially for those who dared to speak out against the administration’s policies or support marginalized communities.
From targeting international students and critical scholars to slashing funding for diversity programs, the administration’s actions have drawn comparisons to another controversial leader: Viktor Orbán of Hungary.
Free Speech for Some, Silence for Others
While the Trump administration claimed it was defending “viewpoint diversity,” in practice, it promoted a narrow ideological agenda. Conservative speakers were protected—even championed—but student protesters, international scholars, and professors who voiced dissent were often punished.
When students participated in protests for racial justice or spoke out on Palestine, they faced disciplinary threats and heightened surveillance. International students were especially vulnerable. Some had their visas reviewed or revoked after attending demonstrations, while others were detained or deported under pretexts tied to immigration status.
In 2020, the administration tried to force all international students out of the U.S. if their classes went fully online during the COVID-19 pandemic—a move widely condemned as cruel and chaotic, later reversed only after multiple universities sued.
Defunding Diversity and Equity
By 2025, the administration took its culture war one step further: issuing a directive that effectively forced universities to shut down Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs or lose federal funding. Programs focused on racial justice, gender equity, and LGBTQ+ inclusion were defunded. Simultaneously, $600 million in grants for teacher training programs that promoted social justice and equity were slashed.
These measures, critics argue, didn’t just undermine student support services—they signaled that certain identities and ideas were unwelcome on campus.
A Playbook Borrowed from Budapest?
Observers have noted striking parallels between Trump’s university policies and those of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. In Hungary, Orbán systematically dismantled academic freedom—forcing Central European University (CEU) out of the country, banning gender studies, and rewriting research agendas to align with nationalist ideology.
Both Trump and Orbán framed their attacks on universities as a defense of traditional values against “woke” ideology or “globalist elites.” In both cases, universities became symbolic battlegrounds in a larger culture war.
What’s at Stake for Students
For students, these policies go beyond politics—they impact daily life, classroom learning, and campus climate. Under the Trump administration, students who once found community in DEI centers or advocacy groups now face a shrinking space for belonging. Faculty worry about what they can teach or research without retribution. International students question their safety and place in U.S. higher ed.
The Fight for Academic Freedom Isn’t Over
Even as the Trump administration intensified its crackdown, student organizers, faculty allies, and civil rights groups continued to push back—through lawsuits, protests, and community defense. The parallels to Hungary serve as both a warning and a call to action: what happened there could happen here, unless students and educators remain vigilant.
In an era where free speech is used as a political weapon, the real test is whether we defend all voices—including those that challenge power. If universities are to remain places of learning, they must also be places of courage.
Friday, September 6, 2024
What caused 70 US universities to arrest protesting students while many more did not?
Earlier this year, the New York Times reported that about 3100 people had been arrested at pro-Palestinian campus protests across the US, noting that 70 schools had arrested or detained people. In addition to arrests, a varying degree of force has been used, including the use of targeted police surveillance, tear gas, and batons.
After those arrests, some schools expelled those protesting students, banned them from campuses, and denied them degrees. Schools also established more onerous policies to stop occupations and other forms of peaceful protest. A few listened to the demands of their students, which included the divestment of funds related to Israel's violent occupation of Palestine.
What can students, teachers, and other university workers learn from these administrative policies and crackdowns? The first thing is to find out what data are out there, and then what information is missing, and perhaps deliberately withheld.
Documenting Campus Crackdowns and Use of Force
The NY Times noted mass arrests/detentions at UCLA (271), Columbia (217), City College of New York (173), University of Texas, Austin (136), UMass Amherst (133), SUNY New Paltz (132), UC Santa Cruz (124), Emerson College (118), Washington University in Saint Louis (100), Northeastern (98), University of Southern California (93), Dartmouth College (89), Virginia Tech (82), Arizona State University (72), SUNY Purchase (68), Art Institute of Chicago (68), UC San Diego (64), Cal Poly Humboldt (60), Indiana University (57), Yale University (52), Fashion Institute of Technology (50), New School (43), Auraria Campus in Denver (40), Ohio State University (38), NYU (37), Portland State University (37), University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, (36), University of Pennsylvania (33), George Washington University (33), Stony Brook University (39), Emory University (28), University of Virginia (27), Tulane University (26), and University of New Mexico (16). In many cases, court charges were dropped but many students faced being barred from campuses or having their diplomas withheld.
The Crowd Counting Consortium at Harvard University's Kennedy School has also been keeping data on US protests and their outcomes from social media, noting that "protest participants have been injured by police or counter-protesters — sometimes severely — about as often as protesters have caused property damage, much of which has been limited to graffiti." Their interactive dashboard is here.
According to a Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) database, out of 258 US universities that held protests, only 60 schools resorted to arrests.* Why did these schools, many name-brand schools, use arrests (and other forms of threats and coercion) as a tactic while others did not? A number of states reported no arrests, particularly in the US North, South, and West.
Analyzing the Data For Good Reasons
There appear to be few obvious answers (and measurable variables) to accurately explain this multi-layered phenomenon, something the media have largely ignored. But that does not mean that this cannot be explained to a better extent than the US media have explained it.
It's tempting to look at a few interesting data points (e.g. according to FIRE, Cornell University and Harvard did not have arrests, and neither did Baylor, Liberty University, and Hillsdale College. Six University of California schools had arrests but three did not. And all of the schools that came before the US House of Representatives Judiciary Subcommittee examining antisemitism (Harvard, Penn, MIT) had arrests after their appearances. The Arizona House had similar hearings in 2023 and 2024 regarding antisemitism and their two biggest schools, Arizona State University and the University of Arizona, had arrests.
Missing Data and Analysis
What else can we notice in this pattern about the administrations involved, the trustees, major donors, or the student body? How much pressure was there from major donors and trustees and can this be quantified? Anecdotally, there were a few public reports from wealthy donors who were unhappy with the protests. Who were those 3100 or so students and teachers who were arrested and what if any affiliations did they have? How many of the students who were arrested Jewish, and what side were they on? How many of these schools with arrests had chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine and Students Supporting Israel? How many schools with these student interest groups did not resort to arrests?
How much communication and coordination was there within schools and among schools, both by administrations and student interest groups? What other possible differences were there between the arrest group and the non-arrest group and are they measurable?
What other dependent variables besides arrests could be or should be be measured (e.g. convictions, fines and sentences, students expelled or banned from campus)? What will become of those who were arrested? Will they be part of a threat database? Will this interfere with their futures beyond higher education? Is it possible to come up with a path analysis or networking models of these events, to include what preceded the arrests and what followed? And what becomes of the few universities that operate more like fortresses today than ivory towers? How soon will they return to normal?
Arrest Group (Source: FIRE)*
4 Arizona State University Yes
8 Barnard College Yes
41 Columbia University Yes
46 Dartmouth College Yes
57 Emory University Yes
59 Florida State University Yes
60 Fordham University Yes
64 George Washington University Yes
78 Indiana University Yes
94 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Yes
105 New Mexico State University Yes
106 New York University Yes
110 Northeastern University Yes
111 Northern Arizona University Yes
112 Northwestern University Yes
115 Ohio State University Yes
123 Portland State University Yes
124 Princeton University Yes
140 Stanford University Yes
142 Stony Brook University Yes
155 Tulane University Yes
156 University at Buffalo Yes
161 University of Arizona Yes
163 University of California, Berkeley Yes
165 University of California, Irvine Yes
166 University of California, Los Angeles Yes
169 University of California, San Diego Yes
170 University of California, Santa Barbara Yes
171 University of California, Santa Cruz Yes
176 University of Colorado, Denver Yes
177 University of Connecticut Yes
181 University of Florida Yes
182 University of Georgia Yes
184 University of Houston Yes
187 University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Yes
189 University of Kansas Yes
194 University of Massachusetts Yes
197 University of Michigan Yes
198 University of Minnesota Yes
206 University of New Hampshire Yes
207 University of New Mexico Yes
208 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Yes
209 University of North Carolina, Charlotte Yes
212 University of Notre Dame Yes
215 University of Pennsylvania Yes
216 University of Pittsburgh Yes
220 University of South Carolina Yes
221 University of South Florida Yes
222 University of Southern California Yes
225 University of Texas, Austin Yes
226 University of Texas, Dallas Yes
231 University of Utah Yes
233 University of Virginia Yes
236 University of Wisconsin, Madison Yes
242 Virginia Commonwealth University Yes
243 Virginia Tech University Yes
247 Washington University in St Louis Yes
248 Wayne State University Yes
257 Yale University Yes
Non-arrest Group (Source: FIRE)*
1 American University No
2 Amherst College No
3 Appalachian State University No
5 Arkansas State University No
6 Auburn University No
7 Bard College No
9 Bates College No
10 Baylor University No
11 Berea College No
12 Binghamton University No
13 Boise State University No
14 Boston College No
15 Boston University No
16 Bowdoin College No
17 Bowling Green State University No
18 Brandeis University No
19 Brigham Young University No
20 Brown University No*
21 Bucknell University No
22 California Institute of Technology No
23 California Polytechnic State University No
24 California State University, Fresno No
25 California State University, Los Angeles No
26 Carleton College No
27 Carnegie Mellon University No
28 Case Western Reserve University No
29 Central Michigan University No
30 Chapman University No
31 Claremont McKenna College No
32 Clark University No
33 Clarkson University No
34 Clemson University No
35 Colby College No
36 Colgate University No
37 College of Charleston No
38 Colorado College No
39 Colorado School of Mines No
40 Colorado State University No
42 Connecticut College No
43 Cornell University No
44 Creighton University No
45 Dakota State University No
47 Davidson College No
48 Denison University No
49 DePaul University No
50 DePauw University No
51 Drexel University No
52 Duke University No
53 Duquesne University No
54 East Carolina University No
55 Eastern Kentucky University No
56 Eastern Michigan University No
58 Florida International University No
61 Franklin and Marshall College No
62 Furman University No
63 George Mason University No
65 Georgetown University No
66 Georgia Institute of Technology No
67 Georgia State University No
68 Gettysburg College No
69 Grinnell College No
70 Hamilton College No
71 Harvard University No*
72 Harvey Mudd College No
73 Haverford College No
74 Hillsdale College No
75 Howard University No
76 Illinois Institute of Technology No
77 Illinois State University No
79 Indiana University Purdue University No
80 Iowa State University No
81 James Madison University No
82 Johns Hopkins University No
83 Kansas State University No
84 Kent State University No
85 Kenyon College No
86 Knox College No
87 Lafayette College No
88 Lehigh University No
89 Liberty University No
90 Louisiana State University No
91 Loyola University, Chicago No
92 Macalester College No
93 Marquette University No
95 Miami University No
96 Michigan State University No
97 Michigan Technological University No
98 Middlebury College No
99 Mississippi State University No
100 Missouri State University No
101 Montana State University No
102 Montclair State University No
103 Mount Holyoke College No
104 New Jersey Institute of Technology No
107 North Carolina State University No
108 North Dakota State University No
109 Northeastern Illinois University No
113 Oberlin College No
114 Occidental College No
116 Ohio University No
117 Oklahoma State University No
118 Oregon State University No
119 Pennsylvania State University No
120 Pepperdine University No
121 Pitzer College No
122 Pomona College No
125 Purdue University No
126 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute No
127 Rice University No
128 Rowan University No
129 Rutgers University No
130 Saint Louis University No
131 San Diego State University No
132 San Jose State University No
133 Santa Clara University No
134 Scripps College No
135 Skidmore College No
136 Smith College No
137 Southern Illinois University, Carbondale No
138 Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville No
139 Southern Methodist University No
141 Stevens Institute of Technology No
143 SUNY at Albany No
144 SUNY College at Geneseo No
145 Swarthmore College No
146 Syracuse University No
147 Temple University No
148 Texas A&M University No
149 Texas State University No
150 Texas Tech University No
151 The College of William and Mary No
152 Towson University No
153 Trinity College No
154 Tufts University No
157 University of Alabama, Birmingham No
158 University of Alabama, Huntsville No
159 University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa No
160 University of Alaska No
162 University of Arkansas No
164 University of California, Davis No
167 University of California, Merced No
168 University of California, Riverside No
172 University of Central Florida No
173 University of Chicago No
174 University of Cincinnati No
175 University of Colorado, Boulder No
178 University of Dayton No
179 University of Delaware No
180 University of Denver No
183 University of Hawaii No
185 University of Idaho No
186 University of Illinois, Chicago No
188 University of Iowa No
190 University of Kentucky No
191 University of Louisville No
192 University of Maine No
193 University of Maryland No
195 University of Memphis No
196 University of Miami No
199 University of Mississippi No
200 University of Missouri, Columbia No
201 University of Missouri, Kansas City No
202 University of Missouri, St Louis No
203 University of Nebraska No
204 University of Nevada, Las Vegas No
205 University of Nevada, Reno No
210 University of North Carolina, Greensboro No
211 University of North Texas No
213 University of Oklahoma No
214 University of Oregon No
217 University of Rhode Island No
218 University of Rochester No
219 University of San Francisco No
223 University of Tennessee No
224 University of Texas, Arlington No
227 University of Texas, El Paso No
228 University of Texas, San Antonio No
229 University of Toledo No
230 University of Tulsa No
232 University of Vermont No
234 University of Washington No
235 University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire No
237 University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee No
238 University of Wyoming No
239 Utah State University No
240 Vanderbilt University No
241 Vassar College No
244 Wake Forest University No
245 Washington and Lee University No
246 Washington State University No
249 Wellesley College No
250 Wesleyan University No
251 West Virginia University No
252 Western Michigan University No
253 Wheaton College No
254 Williams College No
255 Worcester Polytechnic Institute No
256 Wright State University No
*Media sources indicate that in 2023, 2 graduate students were arrested at Harvard, and more than 40 people were arrested at Brown University.
Related links:
Democratic Protests on Campus: Modeling the Better World We Seek (Annelise Orleck)
Methods of Student Nonviolent Resistance
Wikipedia Community Documents Pro-Palestinian Protests on University and College Campuses
Dangerous Spaces: Sexual Assault and Other Forms of Violence On and Off Campus
One Fascism or Two?: The Reemergence of "Fascism(s)" in US Higher Education
A People's History of Higher Education in the US?Letter to an incoming freshman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)