Empire in Decline: What the Fall of Rome Tells Us About the American Oligarchy

There are tax farmers squeezing a province dry. There are soldiers fighting for the emperor's baton. And then there are a few who dread the empire's fall and dream of the old republic.

This is not just the story of ancient Rome. It's also an apt metaphor for the state of contemporary America—a late-stage empire defined by extreme inequality, militarization, and a governing class that clings to power while the social fabric unravels.

In Rome, the Senate once stood as the heart of the Republic, composed of elite Patrician families who wielded enormous religious, political, and economic influence. But as historian and economist Michael Hudson writes in The Collapse of Antiquity, these elites became entrenched creditors and landlords, a rentier class unwilling to compromise or adapt. They refused debt cancellation, land redistribution, or any reforms that might curb their power—transforming what was once a dynamic, if imperfect, republic into a brittle and parasitic empire.

This refusal to evolve created an unsustainable system. Wealth concentrated in fewer hands. Small farmers and urban workers were crushed under debts. The rural economy collapsed as latifundia (large estates) displaced independent farmers. Military commanders, frustrated with elite gridlock, seized power for themselves. And the Senate, once a genuine force of governance, became a ceremonial shell. What followed was a long descent: civil wars, authoritarianism, economic stagnation, and eventually the re-feudalization of the West.

Hudson’s view is clear: the Roman Senate and elite, by prioritizing their creditor rights over the common good, destroyed the economic base that sustained the Empire. In their greed and rigidity, they ensured the fall they feared.

Now consider the United States. Like Rome, America has become dominated by a professional ruling class: oligarchs, financiers, tenured politicians, credentialed technocrats, and think-tank warriors. Institutions of higher education, once engines of democratic possibility, have increasingly become training grounds for this elite. And like the Roman Senate, they are largely unaccountable—privatizing gains, socializing losses, and suppressing reform.

Just as Roman tax farmers drained the provinces, today’s student loan servicers, for-profit colleges, and hedge fund–backed housing firms squeeze the public to fund private empires. Just as Roman generals became emperors, today’s billionaires and media moguls wield near-sovereign power over public discourse, elections, and foreign policy. And just as the Roman elite clung to legal fictions while society crumbled, our ruling class insists the republic is healthy—even as inequality soars, infrastructure decays, and democratic norms erode.

There are still those who long for a return to the "old republic"—to a time when education was a public good, when civic virtue mattered, and when government sought the common welfare. But those voices are increasingly drowned out in a landscape of imperial spectacle, culture wars, and managed decline.

Hudson reminds us that ancient societies that survived economic collapse—like those in Mesopotamia—did so by recognizing the need for periodic resets. They canceled debts. They redistributed land. They prioritized stability over elite entrenchment. Rome—and perhaps America—refused to learn those lessons.

In this moment of crisis, the choice is stark: will we continue down the path of empire, ruled by debt and extraction? Or will we recover some measure of republic, with institutions that serve people, not just capital?

One thing is certain: empires fall. But their people don’t have to fall with them—if they choose to resist.

Sources:

• Michael Hudson, The Collapse of Antiquity: Greece and Rome as Civilization's Oligarchic Turning Point, 2023

• Mary Beard, SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome, 2015

• Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 1776–1789

• Kyle Harper, The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire, 2017

• Higher Education Inquirer, ongoing coverage on student debt and elite university structures

• U.S. Department of Education, data on student debt and institutional concentration of resources

Parental Pushback: Liberal Resistance to Right-Wing Indoctrination in Oklahoma Schools

In the heart of red-state America, a quiet rebellion is taking shape—led not by liberal politicians or university activists, but by parents of K-12 students. In Oklahoma, a growing number of families are fighting back against what they see as an aggressive ideological campaign by far-right leaders to insert misinformation, religious doctrine, and partisan propaganda into public school classrooms.

This resistance is not coming through marches or lawsuits alone, but through the very legal tools that conservatives once championed: parental rights. Families across the state are opting their children out of controversial new social studies standards that they claim distort U.S. history, undermine democratic institutions, and promote Christian nationalism.

Tulsa parent Lauren Parker is among the voices leading this countercharge. “Now that it’s being codified and now that it’s being brought more into the public eye, the liberals have realized that those are our rights too,” she said.

Her main concern: language recently added to Oklahoma’s social studies curriculum that questions the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election. The standards require students to "identify discrepancies" in the results, echoing discredited claims advanced by Donald Trump and his supporters. These include references to “sudden halting of ballot-counting,” “sudden batch dumps,” and “security risks of mail-in balloting”—all without factual basis, and all now embedded in state-mandated education.

These standards were quietly introduced by State Superintendent Ryan Walters and passed by the Oklahoma State Board of Education, some of whom now claim they were unaware of the changes at the time of the vote. A legal challenge is pending in Oklahoma County District Court, questioning the procedures used to approve the new standards.

The opt-out movement has been fueled by organizations like We’re Oklahoma Education—WOKE—formed as a progressive response to right-wing parent groups like Moms for Liberty. WOKE provides parents with templated letters to exempt their children from lessons that include election misinformation, Biblical teachings, and content produced by conservative media outlets like PragerU and ideologically driven institutions like Hillsdale College and Turning Point USA.

“If you believe parents know best, then that applies to all parents,” said WOKE director Erica Watkins, a mother of two public school students in Jenks. Watkins, who describes her family as non-religious, said she won’t allow her children to be taught about Christian scripture in a public school classroom.

Walters has defended the addition of Biblical content as a way to provide historical context, arguing that the teachings of Jesus and the Bible shaped the country’s founding values. But parents like Parker see it differently: “This isn’t about history and facts. It’s about pushing their faith on us, and that’s unacceptable. It’s un-American.”

WOKE members are extending their efforts beyond classrooms. Their opt-out letters also reject any “interaction” with Walters and reject the use of content linked to partisan or religious agendas. In some districts, including Stillwater and Tulsa, school officials have indicated a willingness to honor these requests while awaiting clearer guidance on how to implement the new standards.

Ironically, the legal protections that parents are now invoking stem from Republican-led legislation designed to protect children from what conservatives labeled as “woke indoctrination.” Now, the same legal framework is being used to resist the imposition of a narrow, ideologically driven curriculum. As Senate Minority Leader Julia Kirt noted, “If we have separate schools for everybody who has different beliefs, we’re going to have some real challenges.”

That challenge isn't just philosophical. The battle for K-12 curriculum is already shaping higher education outcomes. Students trained in a politically skewed version of American history may enter college unprepared for academic rigor, especially in disciplines like political science, history, and journalism. Public universities in red states could increasingly find themselves in conflict with the ideological pressures shaping their incoming student populations. Faculty, already under scrutiny in places like Florida and Texas, may have to navigate a new wave of cultural and political tension on campus.

Meanwhile, the polarization of public education is reinforcing broader national divides—between those who see schools as places of civic development and democratic inquiry, and those who view them as battlegrounds in a culture war.

The resistance in Oklahoma marks a new chapter in that war. It's a reminder that parental rights are not the sole property of any political party—and that misinformation, no matter how it’s packaged, won’t go unchallenged. The pushback from parents like Parker and Watkins reflects a broader struggle for control over public education, truth, and the future of American democracy.

And in this fight, the line between K-12 and higher education grows thinner every day.

Violence, Safety, and the Limits of Campus Security: From MIT to Brown and Beyond

The Monday killing of MIT professor Nuno F.G. Loureiro at his home in Brookline, Massachusetts has shaken the academic community and reinforced a troubling reality already examined in Higher Education Inquirer’s recent reporting on campus safety and mental health: violence affecting higher education in the United States is neither isolated nor confined to campus boundaries.

Loureiro, a Portuguese-born physicist and internationally respected scholar in plasma science and fusion research, was a senior leader at MIT and director of its Plasma Science and Fusion Center. His death occurred off campus, yet it reverberated powerfully within higher education because it underscores how scholars, students, and staff exist within a broader national environment shaped by widespread gun violence, strained mental-health systems, and limited preventive safeguards.

Authorities have confirmed the incident as a homicide. At the time of writing, no suspect has been publicly identified, and investigators have released few details about motive. The uncertainty has compounded the shock felt by colleagues, students, and international collaborators who viewed Loureiro as both a scientific leader and a deeply committed mentor.

---

A Pattern, Not an Anomaly

Loureiro’s killing followed a series of violent incidents tied to U.S. college campuses throughout 2025, reinforcing that these events are not aberrations but part of a broader pattern.

Just days earlier, a deadly shooting at Brown University left two students dead and several others wounded when a gunman opened fire in an academic building during final exams. The attack disrupted campus life, forced lockdowns, and exposed vulnerabilities in building access and emergency response procedures.

Earlier in the year, Florida State University experienced a mass shooting in a heavily trafficked campus area, resulting in multiple fatalities and injuries. The suspect, a student, was taken into custody, but the psychological impact on students and faculty persisted long after classes resumed.

At Kentucky State University, a shooting inside a residence hall claimed the life of a student and critically injured another. The alleged shooter was not a student but a parent, underscoring how campus violence increasingly involves individuals with indirect or external connections to institutions.

In September 2025, violence took an explicitly political turn when Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, was assassinated during a public speaking event at Utah Valley University. Kirk was shot during a large outdoor gathering attended by thousands. The killing, widely described as a political assassination, was unprecedented in recent U.S. campus history and raised urgent questions about security at high-profile events, free expression, and political polarization within academic spaces.

Together, these incidents — spanning elite private universities, public flagship institutions, regional campuses, and HBCUs — illustrate how violence in higher education now crosses institutional type, geography, and purpose, from classrooms and residence halls to public forums and nearby neighborhoods.

---

The Limits of Traditional Campus Safety Models

HEI’s recent analysis of U.S. campus safety emphasized a central tension: colleges and universities rely heavily on reactive security measures — armed campus police, surveillance infrastructure, emergency alerts — while underinvesting in prevention, mental-health care, and community-based risk reduction.

The events of 2025 highlight the limitations of these approaches. Even well-resourced institutions cannot fully secure campus perimeters or prevent violence originating beyond institutional control. Nor can security infrastructure alone address the social isolation, untreated mental illness, ideological extremism, and easy access to firearms that underlie many of these incidents.

Federal compliance frameworks such as the Clery Act prioritize disclosure and reporting rather than prevention. Meanwhile, the expansion of campus policing has often mirrored broader trends in U.S. law enforcement, raising concerns about militarization without clear evidence of improved safety outcomes.

---

Violence Beyond Active Shooters

While mass shootings and assassinations draw national attention, they represent only one part of a wider landscape of harm in higher education. HEI has documented other persistent threats, including hazing deaths, sexual violence, domestic abuse, stalking, false threats that provoke armed responses, and institutional failures to protect vulnerable populations.

Mental health remains a critical and often neglected dimension. Many acts of campus-related violence intersect with untreated mental illness, financial stress, academic pressure, and inadequate access to care — conditions exacerbated by rising tuition, housing insecurity, and uneven campus support systems.

For international students in particular, exposure to U.S. gun violence and emergency lockdowns can be deeply destabilizing, challenging assumptions about safety that differ sharply from conditions in other countries.

---

An Urgent Moment for Higher Education

The deaths of individuals such as Professor Loureiro and Charlie Kirk, alongside students at Brown, Florida State, and Kentucky State, underscore a central truth: American campuses do not exist apart from the society around them. No amount of prestige, branding, or technology can fully insulate higher education from national patterns of violence.

For administrators and policymakers, the lesson is not simply to harden security, but to rethink safety holistically — integrating physical protection with mental-health infrastructure, transparent accountability, community engagement, and policies that address deeper cultural and structural drivers of violence.

As Higher Education Inquirer has argued, campus safety is inseparable from broader questions of public health, social policy, and institutional responsibility. Without sustained attention to these connections, tragedies across U.S. campuses will continue to be framed as shocking exceptions rather than symptoms of a deeper and ongoing crisis.

---

Sources

Associated Press reporting on the MIT professor killing
Reuters coverage of campus shootings in 2025
Reporting on the Brown University shooting
Coverage of the Florida State University shooting
Reporting on the Kentucky State University residence hall shooting
PBS NewsHour and national reporting on the Charlie Kirk assassination at Utah Valley University
Higher Education Inquirer – Understanding U.S. Campus Safety and Mental Health: Guidance for International Students

Doing Good? How Nonprofits Exploit the Tax System, Pay Low Wages, and Undermine Labor Rights

The American nonprofit sector, comprising everything from social justice nonprofits to right-wing think tanks, is widely seen as a moral compass in public life. These organizations claim to serve the common good, benefiting from tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) of the U.S. tax code. But beneath the image of benevolence lies a complex ecosystem where low wages, union resistance, and the concentration of wealth and power are all too common. Whether left-leaning or conservative, many nonprofits operate like corporations in all but name—exploiting public subsidies while avoiding the labor and tax obligations of the private sector.

While liberal nonprofits often claim moral high ground, conservative nonprofits such as the Heritage Foundation, Federalist Society, and Turning Point USA are even more explicit in using their nonprofit status for ideological gain. These organizations are generously funded by a network of wealthy donors and dark money, benefiting from laws that shield donor identities while still providing tax breaks. The New York Times and ProPublica have both documented how right-wing nonprofit networks use complex legal structures to move billions in untraceable funds through donor-advised funds and shell charities to influence elections, judiciary appointments, and public policy—while maintaining nonprofit status.

The 2018 creation of the Marble Freedom Trust, which received $1.6 billion in a single donation from electronics magnate Barre Seid, is one of the most striking examples of how conservative nonprofits benefit from the tax system. The money went to Leonard Leo, architect of the conservative judicial movement, and is being used to reshape American courts and governance—all tax-exempt. These conservative nonprofits rarely face scrutiny from the IRS, while progressive nonprofits, especially those tied to activism or labor organizing, often face intense bureaucratic hurdles or audits.

Despite their wealth, conservative nonprofits are not known for paying living wages to their rank-and-file employees. Just as with liberal nonprofits, a culture of ideological commitment is often used to justify stagnant salaries, limited benefits, and the absence of unions. At places like the Leadership Institute or the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, workers may be expected to accept lower compensation for the “privilege” of advancing a conservative mission. Few, if any, of these organizations are unionized. Interns and entry-level employees are often underpaid, even as their organizations maintain multi-million-dollar budgets and highly paid executive teams.

Meanwhile, liberal and progressive nonprofits often mirror this dynamic. The Southern Poverty Law Center, the ACLU, and the Sierra Club have all faced internal revolts from underpaid and overworked staff seeking union protections and better pay. Despite progressive missions, many of these organizations have resisted unionization, hired union-busting consultants, and continued to pay senior leadership six- or seven-figure salaries. The exploitation is bipartisan, rooted not in ideology but in structure: the tax system enables and incentivizes this behavior.

Across the political spectrum, nonprofits depend heavily on unpaid or underpaid labor. Interns, volunteers, and junior staff are routinely told that their sacrifices serve a greater cause, whether that cause is climate justice or dismantling “woke” education. The result is the same: a hollowing out of labor rights under the banner of purpose. The nonprofit sector has become a vehicle for elite influence—liberal and conservative alike—rather than a true instrument of public good.

Unionization in the nonprofit world remains low. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, nonprofit union membership has barely increased over the past three decades. And while there has been an uptick in union drives at liberal nonprofits, conservative organizations have largely avoided these movements altogether. In fact, many conservative nonprofits are actively hostile to organized labor as a matter of principle. The Heritage Foundation, for example, has long opposed the expansion of labor rights and has advised Republican administrations on how to weaken collective bargaining in the public sector.

As nonprofit wealth grows—particularly through endowments, real estate holdings, and tax-exempt investments—workers at the bottom continue to struggle. In higher education, many private nonprofit colleges and universities pay adjunct professors poverty wages while top administrators earn corporate-level compensation. Religious nonprofits, too, have been found to exploit workers under the guise of spiritual service. Megachurches and faith-based charities sometimes use volunteer labor as a substitute for paid employment, all while claiming tax benefits and avoiding federal labor laws.

Reform is urgently needed. Tax exemption should come with clear standards for labor rights, wage equity, and financial transparency. The IRS must enforce restrictions on political spending by nonprofits, particularly those masquerading as educational institutions while operating as partisan arms. Donor disclosure laws should apply across the board, and tax deductions for mega-donations should be limited unless tied to measurable public benefit. If nonprofits are to retain their privileged legal status, they must meet basic ethical and democratic standards.

Until these changes occur, the nonprofit sector will remain a shadow version of the for-profit world—reaping public subsidies while delivering low wages, avoiding unions, and deepening political inequality. Whether the name on the letterhead reads “Heritage Foundation” or “ACLU,” the structure of exploitation is the same. It's not just a crisis of values. It's a crisis of accountability.

Sources

ProPublica. “How a Billionaire’s Donation Exploded the Conservative Nonprofit World.” August 2022. https://www.propublica.org/article/dark-money-leonard-leo-barre-seid

New York Times. “They Legally Moved Billions to Fund Conservatives.” October 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/05/us/politics/dark-money-nonprofits.html

Associated Press. “Why Workers at a Growing Number of Nonprofits Are Unionizing.” June 2023. https://apnews.com/article/7fd961c88c614db47db63ffcd80e084e

PayScale. “Nonprofit Pay Cut: How Much Are You Losing to Do Good?” https://www.payscale.com/research-and-insights/nonprofit-pay-cut

Teen Vogue. “The Nonprofit Industrial Complex: What Is It and How Does It Work?” https://www.teenvogue.com/story/non-profit-industrial-complex-what-is

Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Nonprofit Earnings and Sectoral Employment in the United States Since 1994.” https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2024/article/nonprofit-earnings-and-sectoral-employment-in-the-united-states-since-1994.htm

San Francisco Chronicle. “One of the Bay Area’s Most Progressive Nonprofits Is Warring with Itself.” https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/soleilho/article/nonprofit-unions-workers-20038770.php

Reddit. “Antiwork Nonprofit Volunteer Testimonies.” https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/uhnrfd 

Tech Titans, Ideologues, and the Future of American Higher Education

American higher education is under pressure from within and without—squeezed by financial strain, declining enrollment, political hostility, and technological disruption. But the greatest challenge may be coming from a group of powerful outsiders—figures with deep influence in politics, technology, and media—who are actively reshaping how education is perceived, delivered, and valued. Among them: Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Sam Altman, Alex Karp, and Charlie Kirk. Each brings a different ideology and strategy, but their combined influence represents an existential threat to traditional colleges and universities.

Donald Trump’s second rise to power has included a full-spectrum attack on elite and public institutions of higher learning. From threats to strip funding from schools that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion, to freezing billions in research grants at elite institutions like Harvard, Trump has positioned universities as enemies in a broader cultural and political war. His proposed education policy emphasizes trade schools and short-term credentials over liberal arts and research, while his administration has floated revoking accreditation from institutions that resist his agenda. Rather than investing in public education, the Trump agenda calls for punishment, privatization, and obedience. And for institutions that don’t comply, there are growing threats of taxation, defunding, and public humiliation.

Elon Musk is undermining higher education in a different way. Musk has openly mocked the need for college degrees, suggesting that “you can learn anything online for free.” While that’s partly rhetoric, it’s also a blueprint for disruption. His experimental school Astra Nova already offers a glimpse into a post-institutional future—one that favors creative, independent thinking over traditional credentialing. Now, with plans to launch the Texas Institute of Technology & Science, Musk is betting that elite training can happen outside the bounds of accreditation and federal oversight. Musk’s future is technocratic and libertarian, with universities seen as bloated, slow-moving, and culturally out of touch.

Peter Thiel’s vision is even more radical. Thiel has compared American higher education to the Catholic Church before the Reformation—rich, corrupt, and intellectually bankrupt. His Thiel Fellowship pays young people to skip college entirely, offering $100,000 to start companies instead of accumulating debt. He argues that universities reward conformity and delay adulthood. For Thiel, colleges don’t just fail to prepare students—they actively mislead them. His endgame is a decentralized, market-driven system in which talent rises through initiative and capital, not credentials.

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, presents yet another threat—this time from artificial intelligence. Altman doesn’t reject learning, but he does question the institutions that monopolize it. With tools like ChatGPT and future AI tutors, Altman envisions personalized, real-time learning for everyone, everywhere. In this model, universities risk becoming obsolete—not because they are wrong, but because they are too slow and too expensive. Altman has also pushed universities to take a more active role in shaping AI policy; if they don’t, the tech industry will do it for them. The message is clear: adapt or be replaced.

Alex Karp, CEO of Palantir, is building a new kind of corporate university. Through programs like the Palantir Meritocracy Fellowship and “Semester at Palantir,” Karp is recruiting students directly out of elite schools—particularly those disillusioned by what he sees as anti-Israel sentiment or campus censorship. These programs offer practical, high-paid experience that bypasses traditional academic pathways. Karp’s vision doesn’t require the elimination of universities—it just renders them unnecessary for the most competitive jobs in tech and intelligence. His model suggests a future in which corporations, not universities, decide who is qualified.

Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, has weaponized the culture war to delegitimize higher education entirely. Kirk’s brand of activism portrays universities as corrupt, anti-American indoctrination centers. Through social media campaigns, donor networks, and student chapters, he has built an infrastructure of resistance against academic institutions. His goal isn’t reform—it’s replacement. Through efforts like the Freedom College Alliance, Kirk is helping to build a parallel educational system rooted in conservative Christian values, classical curricula, and ideological purity. In Kirk’s world, higher education isn’t broken—it’s the enemy.

Together, these six men are shaping a new, fragmented future for American education. Some want to burn it down. Some want to replace it. Some want to privatize it or profit from its collapse. What they share is a conviction that traditional universities no longer serve their intended purpose—and that a new model, rooted in tech, politics, or religion, must take its place.

This isn’t a theoretical debate. Universities are already responding—cutting liberal arts programs, racing to implement AI tools, rebranding themselves as career accelerators, and seeking favor with donors who increasingly resemble these disruptive outsiders. For those who resist, the future may include not just funding cuts, but political investigations, lawsuits, and public smear campaigns.

Higher education faces a stark choice. It can double down on its public mission—defending critical thinking, civic engagement, and social mobility—or it can retreat into elite credentialing and survival mode. What it cannot do is ignore the forces gathering at its gates. These forces are rich, powerful, ideologically driven—and they are not waiting for permission to remake the system.

We have met the enemy...

Class conflict has always been woven into the fabric of American higher education. The struggle over access, affordability, and control of knowledge production has long pitted economic elites against working-class and middle-class students, faculty, and staff. Since the 1960s, these tensions have only deepened, exacerbated by policy shifts that have served to entrench inequality rather than dismantle it.

The 1960s marked a critical turning point in the political battle over higher education. Ronald Reagan’s war on the University of California system while he was governor set the tone for a broader conservative backlash against public higher education, which had been expanding to accommodate the postwar baby boom and increasing calls for racial and economic justice. Reagan’s attacks on free tuition and student activism foreshadowed decades of policies designed to limit public investment in higher education while encouraging privatization and corporate influence.

Since the 1970s, economic inequality in the US has grown dramatically, and higher education has been both a battleground and a casualty in this ongoing class war. Today, the sector is experiencing a long-running meltdown, with no signs of reversal. The following key issues illustrate the breadth of the crisis:

Educated Underclass and Underemployment

The promise of higher education as a pathway to economic security has eroded. A growing segment of college graduates, particularly those from working-class backgrounds, find themselves in precarious employment, often saddled with student debt and working jobs that do not require a degree. The rise of the educated underclass reflects a broader trend of economic stratification in the US, where social mobility is increasingly constrained.

Student Loan Debt Crisis

Student loan debt has surpassed $1.7 trillion, shackling millions of Americans to a lifetime of financial insecurity. The cost of higher education has skyrocketed, while wages have stagnated, leaving many borrowers unable to pay off their loans. Rather than addressing this crisis with systemic reform, policymakers have largely chosen half-measures and band-aid solutions that fail to address the structural drivers of student debt.

The Role of Foreign Students in US Higher Education

The influx of international students, particularly from wealthy families abroad, has been used as a revenue stream for cash-strapped universities. While diversity in higher education is valuable, the prioritization of full-tuition-paying international students over domestic students, especially those from working-class backgrounds, reflects a troubling shift in university priorities from public good to profit-seeking.

Academic Labor and Adjunctification

Higher education’s labor crisis is one of its most glaring failures. Over the past several decades, universities have replaced tenured faculty with contingent faculty—adjuncts and lecturers who work for low wages with no job security. This adjunctification has degraded the quality of education while exacerbating economic precarity for instructors, who now make up the majority of faculty positions in the US.

Identity Politics and DEI as a Substitute for Racial Justice

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives have become a central focus of university policies, yet they often serve as a superficial substitute for genuine racial and economic justice. Originating in part from efforts like those of Ward Connerly in California, DEI programs provide cover for institutions that continue to perpetuate racial and economic inequities, while failing to address core issues such as wealth redistribution, labor rights, and equitable access to higher education.

Privatization of Higher Education

Public funding for universities has declined, and in its place, privatization has surged. Universities have increasingly outsourced services, partnered with corporations, and relied on private donors and endowments to stay afloat. This shift has transformed higher education into a commodity rather than a public good, further marginalizing low-income students and faculty who cannot compete in a system driven by financial interests.

Online Education and the For-Profit Takeover

The rise of online education, fueled by for-profit colleges and Online Program Managers (OPMs), has introduced new layers of exploitation and inequality. While online education promises accessibility, in practice, it has been used to cut costs, lower instructional quality, and extract profits from students—many of whom are left with degrees of questionable value and significant debt.

Alienation and Anomie in Higher Education

As economic pressures mount and academic work becomes more precarious, feelings of alienation and anomie have intensified. Students and faculty alike find themselves disconnected from the traditional mission of higher education as a space for critical thought and democratic engagement. The result is a crisis of meaning that extends beyond the university into broader society.

The Power of Elite Universities

At the other end of the spectrum, elite universities continue to amass enormous endowments, wielding disproportionate influence over higher education policy and urban development. These institutions contribute to gentrification, driving up housing costs in surrounding areas while serving as gatekeepers to elite status. Their governing structures—dominated by trustees from finance, industry, and politics—reflect the interests of the wealthy rather than the needs of students and faculty.

The Way Forward

To avoid the full entrenchment of an oligarchic system, those who hold power in higher education must step aside and allow for systemic transformation. This means prioritizing policies that restore public investment in education, dismantle student debt, protect academic labor, and democratize decision-making processes. The fight for a more just and equitable higher education system is inseparable from the broader struggle for democracy itself.

As history has shown, real change will not come from those at the top—it will come from the courageous efforts of students, faculty, and workers who refuse to accept a system built on exploitation and inequality. The time to act is now.

RFK Jr. Just Blew Up HHS—What It Means for America’s Health and Universities

RFK, RFK, how many kids did you kill today?  

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has sparked a crisis in American public health and higher education through his aggressive campaign to dismantle the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Long a cornerstone of federal responsibility for health, welfare, and biomedical research, HHS employed more than 80,000 people and administered over $1.7 trillion annually before Kennedy’s interventions and influence over policy in 2025.

Historical Context: Eisenhower to Kennedy

In 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower launched Reorganization Plan No. 1 to create the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), marking a pivotal moment in the federal government's role in public well-being. By elevating health, education, and social security programs to cabinet-level status, Eisenhower signaled a bold commitment to addressing the needs of a rapidly changing postwar America. 

The move consolidated scattered agencies under one umbrella, aiming to improve administrative efficiency and policy coordination. For higher education, this reorganization laid the groundwork for expanded federal involvement in student aid, institutional support, and educational research.

Vaccines became a formal part of the federal health mission under HEW in the 1950s and 1960s, as the U.S. government began to take a more active role in immunization programs. The turning point was the polio vaccine, licensed in 1955, which prompted widespread federal coordination to distribute and administer vaccines across the country.

President Lyndon B. Johnson transformed the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare into a driving force behind his ambitious Great Society agenda, using it to expand the federal government's role in education and public health. Under his leadership, HEW administered landmark programs like Medicare and Medicaid, revolutionizing access to healthcare for the elderly and poor. In higher education, Johnson championed the Higher Education Act of 1965, which HEW implemented to provide financial aid, strengthen colleges and universities, and open doors for underserved students. HEW became not just a bureaucratic body but a vehicle for social mobility, equity, and national progress—reflecting Johnson’s belief that education was the key to unlocking America’s full potential.

HHS itself was born from a major federal reorganization. In the 1970s, President Richard Nixon proposed to consolidate the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare into HHS.  Nixon’s move was intended to streamline operations, but it left the U.S. with a robust federal apparatus to manage national health challenges.

Under Jimmy Carter the HHS was formed in 1979, creating a centralized agency tasked with managing health policy, Medicare and Medicaid, public health research, and social programs. 

Decades later, Kennedy has argued that HHS is bloated, inefficient, and beholden to corporate and pharmaceutical interests. Through a series of public campaigns and policy interventions, he has influenced the administration to break up HHS, pushing programs down to states or folding them into smaller offices.

Fallout at the CDC

The changes at HHS have had immediate and dramatic consequences at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Kennedy publicly criticized the agency and its leadership, leading to the firing of CDC Director Dr. Marsha Reynolds and sparking a wave of resignations among senior officials. Experts warn that this leadership vacuum jeopardizes the U.S.’s ability to respond to disease outbreaks, maintain vaccination programs, and oversee critical public health surveillance. Internal memos reveal that morale at CDC is at historic lows, with key epidemiologists and lab directors leaving amid uncertainty over funding and administrative oversight.

Impacts on Higher Education and Research

Universities and medical schools are facing cascading consequences. HHS, primarily through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has long been the largest funder of biomedical research in the world, distributing over $45 billion annually. Institutions such as Johns Hopkins, Harvard, and Stanford rely heavily on these funds to support laboratories, graduate students, and clinical trials.

With NIH programs frozen or disrupted due to policy shifts, medical schools are seeing stalled research projects, disrupted residency programs, and shrinking training pipelines in critical specialties. Universities dependent on HHS-administered scholarships, loan repayments, and childcare subsidies for students and staff are struggling to fill the gaps. Without federal coordination, these programs risk becoming inconsistent across states, deepening inequality in education and healthcare access.

National Security and Global Competitiveness

Experts warn that the dismantling of HHS and the destabilization of CDC erode the nation’s capacity to respond to pandemics, bioterrorism, and other public health emergencies. The U.S.’s global leadership in biomedical research is at stake, with rival countries like China, India, and the EU increasingly capable of attracting talent and funding.

A Divisive Legacy

Supporters of Kennedy argue that decentralizing HHS empowers states and reduces bureaucratic overreach. Critics counter that the move threatens public health, medical education, and national security. Universities, research hospitals, and public health agencies are now navigating an uncertain future, with millions of Americans reliant on HHS programs feeling the immediate impact.

From Eisenhower's founding of HEW to Kennedy’s dismantling of HHS, the trajectory of federal health governance has shifted dramatically. The consequences of these decisions—on research, higher education, and public safety—will likely be felt for decades.

---

Sources

• National Institutes of Health. “NIH Budget and Historical Trends.” nih.gov

• Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “National Health Expenditure Data.” cms.gov

• Congressional Research Service. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): Overview and Budget Trends. 2024.

• Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). “Federal Support for Medical Education and Research.” aamc.org

• CDC Internal Communications (leaked memos, 2025)

• Higher Education Inquirer archives on federal research funding and policy shifts

Right-Wing Hillsdale College Targeting MSN Readers for Donations

Hillsdale College—a small, private Christian liberal arts institution in Michigan—has increasingly turned to digital advertising, including Microsoft’s MSN platform, to extend its reach and solicit donations. Known for its conservative ideology and its refusal to accept any federal or state funding, Hillsdale is relying more than ever on mass digital engagement to sustain its growing national influence.

Hillsdale sponsors content across digital news aggregators like MSN using native advertising platforms such as Taboola. These sponsored links promote Hillsdale’s free online courses in subjects like the U.S. Constitution and Western political philosophy. Readers who click are typically prompted to provide an email address, after which they are placed into a recurring stream of newsletters and donation appeals. Hillsdale’s marketing strategy combines educational branding with ideological and political themes designed to deepen audience loyalty and increase donor conversion.

The school’s strategy is informed by its unique financial model. Unlike most colleges, Hillsdale accepts no Title IV federal funds and avoids other forms of government support. While this independence allows Hillsdale to circumvent Department of Education oversight, it also necessitates a highly developed fundraising operation. Hillsdale reportedly raises between $100 million and $200 million annually through private donations, which support its growing campus, online educational infrastructure, Imprimis publication, and a national network of affiliated classical charter schools.

Hillsdale’s digital fundraising and brand-building efforts align closely with its broader ideological mission. On February 19, 2025, Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk delivered a keynote lecture at Hillsdale’s National Leadership Seminar in Phoenix. Titled “Hitting the Ground Running: The Trump Transition and Early Priorities,” the event illustrated how Hillsdale fuses academic outreach with conservative political messaging. The speech was promoted on Hillsdale’s social media platforms and streamed via its Freedom Library website.

[Charlie Kirk speaks at Hillsdale College in February 2025.] 

Hillsdale’s collaboration with platforms like MSN reflects a wider shift in how politically-aligned institutions use digital media ecosystems to bypass traditional gatekeepers. Because MSN blends sponsored content into its main news feed using algorithmic curation, promotional material from ideological institutions can appear alongside conventional journalism—without the benefit of editorial transparency or disclaimers. For Hillsdale, this means access to millions of readers, many of whom may not realize they’re engaging with sponsored political content masked as civic education.

This convergence of ideology, education, and marketing raises critical questions about the future of higher education outreach and the role of big tech platforms in shaping political narratives. Hillsdale’s success in these spaces underscores how easily lines between education, influence, and revenue can blur in the digital age.

Sources
https://online.hillsdale.edu/courses/promo/constitution-101
https://freedomlibrary.hillsdale.edu/programs/national-leadership-seminar-phoenix-arizona/hitting-the-ground-running-the-trump-transition-and-early-priorities
https://about.ads.microsoft.com/en/solutions/ad-products-formats/display
https://www.hillsdale.edu/about/frequently-asked-questions/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsdale_College
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu
https://www.facebook.com/hillsdalecollegemichigan/posts/livestream-today-1000-pm-et-watch-charlie-kirks-speech-hitting-the-ground-runnin/905074171834140

From Classroom Crisis to System Change: How One Educator Turned Her Son’s Story Into a Lifeline for Schools

Jessica Werner, Ph.D., CEO and Founder of Northshore Learning, has spent more than 20 years as an educator, specialist, and advocate for students with complex needs. But the turning point in her work didn’t come in a classroom or at a conference. It came the day her own son was asked to leave preschool.

Her son, who has a behavior disorder, was struggling in a setting that wasn’t prepared to support him. Eventually, the preschool told Jessica that his needs were too complex and that he could no longer attend.

In an instant, the roles shifted. Jessica, who had spent years helping schools strengthen their systems and better support students, suddenly found herself on the other side of the table — as a parent being told that her child didn’t fit.

“He won’t be the last child you see like this,” Werner told the preschool administration. “While I understand that you can’t support him now, just know, there will be more coming.”

She was right.

A Full-Circle Moment

Several years later, the same school reached back out to Jessica.

They were now seeing more students like her son. They saw children with higher needs, complex behaviors, and significant regulation and emotional challenges. Their teachers were overwhelmed. Their existing tools, training, and systems weren’t enough.

They needed help.

Jessica agreed without hesitation. Today, she partners with that school to train and mentor its teachers. The same system that once had to ask her son to leave is now working with her to build capacity, compassion, and practical tools for the next generation of students.

What was once a personal heartbreak has become a catalyst for change.

“The Hardest Part of Teaching Wasn’t the Teaching”

Jessica’s journey started like that of so many teachers: with passion, heart, and a deep belief that she could make a difference.

She did not expect what she experienced in her first year.

“The hardest part of teaching wasn’t the teaching,” she recalls. “It was the behavior, regulation, and emotional needs of my students, and I wasn’t prepared.”

Like many new educators, she had strong content knowledge and a solid academic foundation. But she quickly realized that her students needed more than lessons. They needed support with self-regulation, behavior, and emotional safety. And she needed a different kind of training to meet those needs.

Determined not to leave the profession, Jessica made a decision that would shape the rest of her career. She spent an entire summer interviewing experts, seeking out mentors, attending trainings, and rebuilding her approach from the ground up.

She returned to the classroom as, in her words, “a completely new teacher.”

A Story Playing Out in Schools Everywhere

Jessica’s experience is no longer an exception; it is increasingly the norm.

Schools across the country and around the world are grappling with a similar reality:

• Teachers are overwhelmed by rising student behavior and mental-health needs.
  
  

• Parents are navigating systems that are stretched thin and often not designed for the level of complexity they now face.
  
  

• Administrators are struggling to support staff and maintain stability in a post-COVID landscape.
  
  

• Schools are searching desperately for tools, training, and models that actually work in today’s classrooms.
  

The gap between what students need and what schools are prepared to provide has grown too large to ignore. Teachers report burnout at record levels. Classrooms are more complex than ever. And children like Jessica’s son are often the first to fall through the cracks when systems can’t keep up.

Bridging the Gap

Jessica’s work now sits directly in that gap.

Drawing on her experience as a teacher, specialist, and mother of a child with a behavior disorder, she partners with schools worldwide to:

• Train and mentor educators in behavior and regulation support
  
  

• Help schools build systems that are proactive rather than reactive

• Equip staff with practical tools for de-escalation, connection, and co-regulation

• Support administrators in creating sustainable, teacher-friendly frameworks

Her mission is simple, but profound: support teachers, understand students, and prepare schools for today’s classrooms.

That mission is rooted in both research and lived experience. Jessica knows the strain educators are under. She knows the heartbreak parents feel when systems can’t support their children. And she knows that with the right training and structures, schools can become places where both kids and adults are more regulated, supported, and successful.

Preparing for the Students Already Walking Through the Door

When Jessica told her son’s preschool, “There will be more coming,” she wasn’t issuing a threat. She was naming a truth that many schools are only now beginning to fully confront.

The students are already here: children with trauma histories, behavior disorders, anxiety, depression, autism, ADHD, and complex emotional needs. Post-pandemic, their numbers and needs have only intensified.

What began as a painful personal experience, having her own child turned away, has become a full-circle story of partnership and possibility. The same school that once said, “We can’t do this,” now says, “Help us learn how.”

For Jessica Werner, the work is deeply professional and personal. And for the schools she serves, it’s essential.

"Peak Higher Education" Book Debuts January 6, 2026 (Bryan Alexander)

Peak Higher Ed: How to Survive the Looming Academic Crisis by Bryan Alexander debuts January 6, 2026.  Here's a synopsis. 

Over the past decade, American colleges and universities have seen enrollment decline, campuses close, programs cut, faculty and staff laid off, and public confidence erode. In Peak Higher Ed, futurist Bryan Alexander forecasts what the next decade might hold if we continue down this path. He argues that the United States has passed its high-water mark for postsecondary education and now faces a critical turning point. How will higher ed institutions respond to this wave of change and crisis?

Combining data-driven research with scenario modeling, Alexander outlines a powerful framework for understanding what led to this moment: declining birthrates, surging student debt, rising tuition, shifting political winds, and growing skepticism about the value of a college degree. He maps out how these forces, if left unchecked, could continue to reshape academia by shrinking its footprint, narrowing its mission, and jeopardizing its role in addressing the planet's most pressing challenges, from climate change to artificial intelligence. Alexander explores how institutions might adapt or recover, presenting two possible futures: a path of managed descent and a more hopeful course of reinvention.

Peak Higher Ed examines the fraying of the "college for all" consensus, the long shadow of pandemic-era disruptions, and the political polarization that has placed universities in the crosshairs. Written for educators, policymakers, students, and anyone invested in the future of higher learning, this book offers a deeply informed, unflinching look at the road ahead and the choices that will determine whether colleges and universities retreat from their peak or rise to a new one.

Violence erupts at UC Davis Turning Point event | Investigation Underway (ABC10-Northern California)

Security Threats: Groypers on Campus

Across the United States, far-right networks have quietly built their presence on college campuses—not through mass rallies or overt displays, but through a loose coalition of digital activists and in-person operatives known as Groypers.

The Groypers, inspired by the alt-right, white-nationalist, and “America First” ecosystems of the late 2010s and early 2020s, represent a new iteration of extremist youth organizing: savvy, antagonistic, and optimized for a social-media landscape where attention is currency and disruption is strategy.

Their influence is not as visible as Turning Point USA tabling events or Young America’s Foundation speaker tours. Instead, the Groyper presence grows through infiltration, targeted disruption, and online radicalization that spills into student life. As economic anxiety and political distrust intensify, campuses have become fertile ground for this phenomenon.

What Are Groypers?
Groypers are part of a decentralized far-right subculture aligned with white-nationalist figures and Christian nationalist ideologues. They are not a formal organization; rather, they are a network of memetic identities, recognizable by:
the cartoon Groyper frog mascot (an offshoot of the Pepe image ecosystem),
online anonymity/alter-egos,
ideological tropes centered on nativism, Christian nationalism, and “white identity,”
disruptive tactics aimed at embarrassing mainstream conservatives and intimidating progressive students.

Their overall goal is to pull young conservatives—and disaffected apolitical students—toward a more extreme worldview.

Why Campuses Are Targets
1. Transitional Vulnerability
First-year students often experience isolation, uncertainty, and identity formation. Groypers prey on this transitional moment by offering belonging, brotherhood, and contrarian confidence.

2. Political Vacuum
As universities retreat from serious civic education and as student affairs offices shrink under austerity, space opens for fringe networks to fill the ideological void.

3. Online Radicalization Pipelines
Groypers thrive in places like:

Discord
Telegram
X/Twitter
anonymous forums
niche livestream communities

Campus life becomes an extension of these networks, where online provocations evolve into real-world harassment or orchestrated spectacle.

4. Conservative Student Groups as Entry Points
Mainstream Republican or “free speech” groups are often targeted for infiltration. Groypers show up:
to push Q&A sessions into racist or antisemitic talking points,
to pressure student Republicans to shift further right,
to create rifts between libertarian, traditional conservative, and MAGA factions.

The strategy is division, not dialogue.

Common Groyper Tactics on Campus
1. Ambush Questioning
At public lectures or campus Republican events, Groypers coordinate to dominate Q&A sessions, posing racially charged or conspiratorial questions designed to go viral.

2. Online Harassment and Dogpiling
Students—often women, LGBTQ+ students, or activists—find themselves targeted with:

brigade attacks,
doxxing attempts,
edited clips taken out of context,
swarm-like intimidation.

3. Misery Farming
Groypers intentionally provoke negative reactions to harvest “proof” that campuses are hostile to conservatives. This content is then fed into national media pipelines.

4. Grooming and Recruitment
They seek out students who feel:
lonely
unsupported
resentful
ideologically adrift
economically anxious

A mix of dark humor, contrarian bravado, and “insider knowledge” becomes the grooming pathway.

The Institutional Problem: Campuses Are Not Prepared
Universities often misread these actors as:
“just trolls,”
“rowdy conservatives,”
“free speech activists.”

They’re not.

Groypers are engaged in ideological recruitment and targeted harassment that can escalate into threats, coordinated disruption, and offline violence. Yet institutions remain slow to respond because:
they lack digital literacy,
they fear backlash from right-wing media,
they outsource security and student affairs to PR firms,
administrators underestimate decentralized extremist networks.

Faculty—especially contingent or early-career academics—often feel unsupported or intimidated.

How Groypers Fit into the Larger Campus Crisis
The Groypers’ rise exposes deeper fractures:
neoliberal hollowing of the university
growing distrust in democratic institutions
political polarization fueled by billionaire-backed media
the decline of genuine civic education
surveillance capitalism and algorithmic radicalization

Campuses have become battlegrounds—not by accident, but because they sit at the intersection of youth, identity, technology, and national politics.

What Higher Education Must Do Now
Universities need to respond with clarity, not panic, and with structural solutions, not symbolic statements.

1. Treat Digital Extremism as Part of Student Safety
This means training staff, hiring specialists, and supporting targets of online harassment.

2. Reinvest in Human Infrastructure
Student Affairs, counseling centers, and campus journalism must be strengthened—not cut or replaced with outsourcing contracts.

3. Support Independent Investigative Student Journalism
Student reporters are often the first to detect radicalization trends—but only if their newsrooms are funded and protected.

4. Protect Academic Freedom Without Ceding Ground to Harassment
“Free speech” cannot be a shield for sustained intimidation campaigns.

5. Strengthen Civic Education Rooted in Truth and Inclusion
The real antidote to extremism is not censorship—it’s meaningful democratic literacy.

Seeing the Threat Clearly
Groypers are not the dominant force on campus. Most students reject their worldview. But they are a growing presence within a broader crisis where U.S. higher education lacks the stability, funding, and courage to defend its mission.

The real danger is not the meme or the mascot—it’s the vacuum that allows extremist networks to flourish.

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue monitoring this issue as the 2026 and 2028 election cycles approach, when radical groups often intensify campus recruitment and provocation.