The Assassination of Anas al-Sharif: A Stark Reminder of the Global Suppression of Dissident Voices

On August 10, 2025, Palestinian journalist Anas al-Sharif, a respected correspondent for Al Jazeera, was killed in an Israeli airstrike near Gaza City's Al-Shifa Hospital. Alongside four colleagues, al-Sharif was reporting from one of the most dangerous places on earth—an epicenter of a protracted conflict and humanitarian crisis. The Israeli military claimed al-Sharif was a leader in a Hamas cell, accusations that both Al Jazeera and the journalist himself had categorically denied.

This targeted killing is more than a tragic loss of life; it signals a concerted effort to silence independent journalism in one of the world’s most contested territories. Sharif’s assassination fits a pattern of repression that threatens the free flow of information in Palestine and reverberates globally—especially in democracies like the United States, where the space for dissenting voices is narrowing under pressure from political and corporate interests.

---

A Journalist Under Siege in Gaza

For years, Anas al-Sharif had been a fearless voice reporting on the devastating consequences of the Israeli blockade and military campaigns on Gaza’s civilian population. His reports brought international attention to the human cost of war: widespread destruction, scarcity of food and medicine, and the psychological toll on children and families.

Al-Sharif’s on-air appeals for humanitarian intervention were marked by raw emotion and urgency. His willingness to confront powerful narratives and highlight suffering made him a target. Israeli officials responded with an escalating campaign of vilification, accusing him of terrorism without evidence and intensifying military operations around his reporting sites.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) had raised alarms about threats against Sharif and other journalists in Gaza, warning the international community that such intimidation could foreshadow violence. Tragically, those warnings came true.

---

The Deadliest Conflict for Journalists in Recent History

According to CPJ data, over 200 journalists have been killed in Gaza since the current conflict began 22 months ago, making it the deadliest period for the press in decades. The targeting of journalists in Gaza violates international humanitarian law, which protects reporters as civilians in conflict zones. Yet, the line between combatants and reporters is increasingly blurred by powerful actors seeking to control narratives.

The killing of al-Sharif and his colleagues has sent a chilling message to journalists across the globe: reporting on human rights abuses and war crimes carries lethal risk. This trend threatens to erode the fundamental democratic principle that the public has the right to know what is happening in their name.

---

Suppression of Dissent in the United States

While the context in Gaza is extreme, troubling parallels exist in the United States. Press freedom in the US has faced mounting challenges, especially for journalists exposing government wrongdoing, police abuses, and systemic inequalities.

Investigative reporters have been subjected to government surveillance, subpoenaed for their sources, and threatened with prosecution under broad national security laws. Whistleblowers face legal retaliation, and activists reporting on racial justice or labor issues often encounter police intimidation.

This creeping erosion of press freedoms limits the ability of journalists to hold power accountable. It also fosters a culture where dissenting voices—whether in mainstream media, academia, or grassroots activism—are marginalized or criminalized.

---

Higher Education as a Crucible for Free Expression

Universities and colleges should be bastions of critical thought, inquiry, and free expression. However, they increasingly reflect the pressures found in broader society. Political and financial influences shape what can be taught or researched, particularly around controversial subjects such as Palestine, US foreign policy, race, and inequality.

Faculty and students who challenge dominant narratives often face harassment, surveillance, or even administrative censure. Legislative efforts in several states seek to restrict discussions deemed “divisive,” chilling debate and critical scholarship.

The suppression of voices like Sharif’s in the media finds echoes in academic institutions, where control over narratives can be just as forceful—only less visible.

---

The Urgent Need for Solidarity and Defense of Press Freedom

The assassination of Anas al-Sharif is a devastating reminder of what is lost when journalism is silenced: truth, accountability, and the possibility for change. It is a call to action for universities, journalists, human rights advocates, and the global community to defend those who risk their lives to report uncomfortable realities.

Solidarity must transcend borders. Academic institutions should champion press freedom by protecting scholars and students who work on sensitive issues and by amplifying marginalized voices. Media organizations and advocacy groups must push for international mechanisms to protect journalists and hold accountable those who target them.

Sharif’s legacy is one of courage and commitment to the truth. To honor his life and sacrifice, we must resist efforts to normalize violence against journalists and dissenters everywhere.

---

Sources

• Inquirer: Israel kills Anas al-Sharif, Al Jazeera journalist, in Gaza airstrike

• Committee to Protect Journalists: CPJ calls for Anas Al-Sharif’s protection in face of Israeli smears

• Al Jazeera: Al Jazeera condemns Israeli incitement against Gaza reporter Anas al-Sharif

• Associated Press: Israel kills Anas al-Sharif, an Al Jazeera correspondent, as journalist death toll grows in Gaza

• The Guardian: Mourners gather amid outrage over Israeli troops' killing of journalists in Gaza

• The Times: Five Al Jazeera journalists killed in targeted Israeli strike on Gaza

Campus Warning: Avoid Contact with Turning Point USA

Turning Point USA (TPUSA) brands itself as a conservative youth movement dedicated to free markets and limited government. In reality, a growing body of investigative reporting, watchdog research, and student testimony reveals an organization built on intimidation, manipulation, and close ties to extremists. Students should be aware of the risks before engaging with TPUSA in any capacity.

From its inception, TPUSA has sought to be confrontational. One of its most notorious tools, the Professor Watchlist, publishes the names, photos, and alleged offenses of professors the group deems “anti-conservative.” This public shaming campaign has been condemned by educators and civil liberties advocates as a threat to academic freedom and personal safety. In more recent years, TPUSA has expanded its targets beyond individual professors, with initiatives like the School Board Watchlist, designed to stir distrust of public education and stoke fear around diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.

These campaigns are paired with questionable political tactics. Investigations have shown that TPUSA has engaged in covert influence efforts on college campuses, including secretly funding student government elections and running coordinated online disinformation campaigns. Their political arm, Turning Point Action, has been compared to a troll farm for its use of deceptive social media operations.

The group’s leadership and chapters have repeatedly been linked to white supremacist and far-right extremist figures. TPUSA events have hosted or associated with members of Nick Fuentes’ “Groyper” movement, Holocaust deniers, and other alt-right personalities. The Southern Poverty Law Center, Anti-Defamation League, and multiple journalists have documented these associations, which TPUSA leaders routinely downplay. Internal communications and leaked chapter messages have exposed racist, homophobic, and Islamophobic rhetoric from members. Charlie Kirk, TPUSA’s founder, once falsely claimed that a Black woman had “taken his place” at West Point, a statement criticized as both untrue and racially inflammatory.

TPUSA’s messaging also extends beyond politics into science denial. The group has repeatedly dismissed the scientific consensus on climate change, framing environmental concerns as a hoax or left-wing scare tactic, and hosting events that platform climate change skeptics over credible experts. TPUSA has received significant funding from fossil fuel interests, including Koch network-affiliated donors, and from political megadonors such as Foster Friess and Rebekah Mercer, who are known for underwriting climate denial campaigns. Other key allies include right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and media figures such as Tucker Carlson, who have amplified TPUSA’s messaging to broader audiences. The organization has also benefitted from support by religious nationalist groups and political operatives who share its hardline positions on education, race, and gender.

TPUSA’s confrontational model often invites chaos. At UC Davis, a TPUSA-sponsored event erupted into physical clashes involving Proud Boys. Across campuses, students and faculty report that TPUSA representatives deliberately provoke heated exchanges, record them, and circulate the footage to mobilize their base and fundraise off manufactured outrage. Former members have confirmed that such confrontations are not accidental, but rather part of the playbook.

While TPUSA presents itself as a mainstream conservative voice, the evidence paints a darker picture: an organization willing to distort, harass, and align with extremists to achieve its goals. Students seeking honest political debate should look for groups that engage in respectful dialogue, value truth over theatrics, and reject intimidation as a tool.

Sources:
Southern Poverty Law Center – Turning Point USA: Case Study in the Hard Right
Media Matters – Turning Point USA’s History of Racism and White Nationalist Ties
The New Yorker – A Conservative Nonprofit That Seeks to Transform College Campuses Faces Allegations of Racial Bias and Illegal Campaign Activity
Anti-Defamation League – Extremism in American Politics: Turning Point USA
Wired – How Charlie Kirk Plans to Discredit Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Act
Chron – Texas A&M Turning Point Chat Exposes Racist and Homophobic Comments
The Guardian – What I Learned When Turning Point USA Came to My Campus
OpenSecrets – Turning Point USA Donors and Political Funding
DeSmog – Turning Point USA and Fossil Fuel Industry Influence

How Well Are RAs Trained?

Resident Assistants (RAs) are often the first line of defense in college residential life. They’re expected to wear many hats: peer mentors, community builders, rule enforcers, crisis responders, and mental health triage workers. Yet most are undergraduate students themselves—barely older than the residents they oversee—and often underpaid or unpaid for the critical work they do.

Given these responsibilities, one pressing question remains: how well are RAs actually trained to do the job?

The Scope of the RA Role

At most colleges and universities, RAs are chosen through competitive application processes and undergo mandatory training before each academic year. Their job descriptions often include enforcing housing policies, resolving roommate conflicts, planning events, documenting rule violations, and serving as 24/7 on-call crisis contacts.

They are also the ones students turn to in the wake of sexual assaults, substance overdoses, suicidal ideation, or interpersonal violence—scenarios far outside the boundaries of typical student experience or authority.

This raises ethical and legal questions: Are institutions relying too heavily on RAs as stopgaps for inadequate professional staffing? And are RAs adequately equipped for what they’re being asked to do?

Training Duration Varies—Widely

RA training typically ranges from a few days to two weeks, depending on the school. Some institutions provide extensive workshops on topics like mental health first aid, Title IX reporting, diversity and inclusion, active shooter preparedness, and conflict mediation. Others prioritize bureaucratic compliance over practical preparation.

A 2023 survey by Inside Higher Ed and the Association of College and University Housing Officers (ACUHO-I) found that only 47% of RAs reported feeling “fully prepared” to handle crises. Over 25% said they had no meaningful training in trauma-informed response or de-escalation. And fewer than 15% received detailed instruction on dealing with students with disabilities or navigating racial bias incidents—both common issues in residential settings.

Mental Health Crises Are on the Rise

According to the American College Health Association, nearly 75% of students report moderate to serious psychological distress, with campus counselors increasingly overwhelmed. In many cases, RAs become the first responders—waking up in the middle of the night to assess whether someone is suicidal, high, or having a panic attack.

But the stakes are enormous. One misjudgment could lead to a suicide, a lawsuit, or a violent altercation. Without formal mental health credentials or trauma-informed care training, RAs often operate on gut instinct and patchy training.

Several RAs interviewed for this article shared a common sentiment: “We’re expected to be therapists and cops, but we’re not trained to be either.”

Legal Liability and Institutional Risk

Some universities have faced lawsuits and media scrutiny over failures in RA training. A few tragic cases—ranging from overlooked suicide warnings to mishandled sexual assaults—have exposed just how unprepared and unsupported RAs can be.

Despite this, schools continue to delegate serious duties to RAs while insulating themselves from liability. When crises escalate, RAs may be scapegoated or pressured to resign quietly. In return, they often receive compensation that doesn't match the job’s gravity—such as a free dorm room and a small stipend.

Burnout and Attrition

Many RAs experience burnout within the first semester, and turnover can be high, especially at large public universities where staff support is stretched thin. The emotional toll of constant availability, conflict management, and exposure to trauma can be immense.

In one Midwestern state school, RA vacancies jumped 40% in one year, prompting administrators to shorten training and raise hiring quotas—creating a vicious cycle of undertraining and overreliance.

The Disparity Problem

Elite schools with large endowments are more likely to offer robust RA training, professional backup, and wraparound services. Meanwhile, less-resourced regional publics and community colleges often treat RAs as glorified rule enforcers, with minimal oversight and training.

Additionally, BIPOC and LGBTQ+ RAs are often asked—explicitly or implicitly—to do more emotional labor around diversity, bias, and inclusion without being paid or trained for it.

This inequality mirrors larger divides in higher education, where students at wealthier institutions receive better support and protection than their peers at underfunded schools.

---

Toward a Better System

If RAs are to remain integral to campus residential life, colleges and universities must invest more in their training, support, and compensation. That includes:

• Standardized, evidence-based training protocols across institutions

• Paid year-round training with scenario-based learning and professional mentorship

• On-call professional support for crisis escalation

• Clear boundaries between peer support and professional intervention

• Mental health services for RAs themselves

At the very least, students should know what they’re signing up for—and institutions should stop outsourcing serious responsibilities to underpaid peers without the tools to succeed.

---

Conclusion

Resident Assistants play a crucial role in shaping the campus experience, but the current model puts too much weight on too little training. As mental health crises, racial tensions, and campus violence continue to rise, the question is no longer whether RAs are ready—it’s whether universities are willing to admit they’ve been relying on a broken system.

Sources:

• American College Health Association: National College Health Assessment

• Inside Higher Ed / ACUHO-I RA Training Survey (2023)

• NASPA: Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education

• Lawsuits and media coverage of RA-related incidents (ProPublica, Chronicle of Higher Education)

When Democrats Talk "War": Reckoning with Escalating Political Rhetoric

In recent months, some Democrats, including Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett of Texas, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, and Oklahoma State Representative Chuck Hoskin Jr., have used language invoking “war” or “battle” to describe their political struggle. This development follows years of similar rhetoric on the right, with conservative commentators like Charlie Kirk openly discussing the possibility of civil war in America.

While the frustration expressed by many Democrats stems from legitimate concerns about the Trump administration’s impact on democratic norms and civil rights, escalating language on both sides of the political divide risks deepening national polarization.

Jasmine Crockett has spoken passionately about the need to resist authoritarian tendencies and protect voting rights, sometimes using combat metaphors to emphasize urgency. Governor Hochul has also used strong language framing political fights as critical battles for democracy. Similarly, Hoskin has described political conflicts in terms that evoke struggle. These expressions reflect the intensity of the current political moment and the anger felt by many who see democracy under threat. However, this kind of rhetoric can contribute to an atmosphere where political opponents are seen not just as rivals but as enemies. When elected officials use warlike language, it can legitimize hostility and increase the risk of violence.

Conservative voices like Charlie Kirk have for years warned of civil war should their political goals be blocked, normalizing extreme and violent discourse. Such language has been weaponized to mobilize supporters and delegitimize opposing viewpoints. The adoption of similarly combative language by Democrats risks amplifying division rather than fostering democratic debate.

It is understandable that Democrats feel frustrated and threatened after years of political attacks and institutional undermining. Still, all political leaders must be mindful of how their words can escalate tensions. Words matter. When public figures invoke “war,” it risks crossing from metaphor into justification for real conflict. Given recent episodes of political violence, rhetoric that inflames should be avoided by leaders on both sides.

The political climate in the United States is highly volatile. Frustration is widespread and justified in many quarters, but elected officials must consider the consequences of their rhetoric. The use of war-related language by Democrats, mirroring longstanding conservative warnings, underscores the urgency of returning to measured, responsible discourse that prioritizes democratic engagement over confrontation.

Sources for this article include public statements and speeches by Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, and Oklahoma State Representative Chuck Hoskin Jr., as well as commentary by Charlie Kirk, whose civil war rhetoric has been documented in interviews and social media from 2019 to 2023. Further context is drawn from political rhetoric analyses such as Kathleen Hall Jamieson's Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President (Oxford University Press, 2018), reporting on political violence from outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post between 2021 and 2025, and studies on political language’s impact on polarization from the Pew Research Center (2022).

The Trumpian Apocalypse: How Administrative Reinterpretation Exposed the Fiction of Democratic Higher Education (Glen McGhee)

The Trump administration’s surgical use of administrative reinterpretation did not simply dismantle higher education’s most visible equity programs — it stripped away the legitimacy claims the sector has relied upon for over a century. In doing so, it revealed something more unsettling than policy reversals: the democratic higher education Americans thought they knew never truly existed.

No sweeping new laws were required. No constitutional amendments. The transformation came through the withdrawal of federal complicity in maintaining a carefully cultivated fiction — a legitimacy performance in which inclusion and meritocracy were projected as foundational values, while exclusion and class reproduction were embedded in the architecture.

Equity Promises Without Structural Protection

The much-publicized “Dear Colleague” letter that accused colleges of violating civil rights law “each time they considered race” laid bare the core contradiction: the same institutions that marketed themselves as engines of inclusion were designed, from inception, to sort, stratify, and exclude. The fact that entire diversity and equity initiatives could vanish overnight through reinterpretation of existing statutes proves they were never structurally embedded. They were tolerated when politically expedient, discarded when they became politically inconvenient.

Programs that genuinely challenged the hierarchy — Durham Tech’s Hope Renovations training women for the trades, the Bulls Academy opening pharmaceutical careers to Black and Hispanic workers — were eliminated without legal resistance. Their removal revealed the sector’s true operating principle: “talent development” was always subordinate to talent sorting.

The Budget Axe and the “Chaos Tax”

When $31 billion in Title IV funding disappeared through budget reconciliation — a process requiring only a simple majority — the fragility of higher education’s federal compact was exposed. For community colleges, which had long claimed an “integral role” in local economies, this was a rude awakening. No amount of social necessity translated into political protection.

The fallout produced what insiders now call the “chaos tax” — institutional leaders devoting their days to survival drills rather than educational missions. That presidents of community colleges needed emergency coalitions just to interpret shifting federal obligations underscored the truth: institutional autonomy was never real, only a bureaucratic convenience allowed by Washington.

Civil Rights as a Tool of Authoritarianism

Perhaps the most shocking revelation was that statutory authority already existed to erase equity programs using the very civil rights laws meant to protect them. The administration’s use of Title VI to dismantle diversity initiatives inverted the democratic intent of the statute, showing that the framework for authoritarian control was baked into the law from the beginning.

Elite universities and community colleges alike were subject to the same redefinitions. Harvard’s prestige and billion-dollar endowment proved no more protective than a rural community college’s role in workforce development. The supposed binary between elite and democratic higher education collapsed into a single truth: neither had the structural autonomy necessary to resist political capture.

The Collapse of the Meritocratic Narrative

TRIO programs for first-generation students, adult education for immigrants, and work-study opportunities for low-income students were dismissed as “relics of the past.” Such rhetoric reframes decades of access expansion — from the GI Bill to community college growth — not as permanent democratic commitments, but as temporary political accommodations.

Seen in this light, the Trump administration did not destroy democratic higher education — it exposed its nonexistence. The sector’s dependence on federal tolerance, rather than embedded democratic principle, made authoritarian capture a matter of timing, not possibility.

The Trumpian Apocalypse

What we are witnessing is more than a partisan policy shift; it is what can only be called a “Trumpian Apocalypse” — an unveiling that forces recognition of the fragility and contingency of higher education’s democratic image. The apocalypse here is revelatory: myths of meritocracy, stability, and institutional resilience dissolve under the reality that these institutions were always bureaucratically dependent and politically vulnerable.

This revelation exceeds the sector’s ability to respond, even its ability to conceptualize the rupture. For generations, Americans were conditioned to see colleges and universities as permanent fixtures of civil society — stable, meritocratic, autonomous. The rapid evaporation of protections and programs has shown that this stability was never structural, only circumstantial.

What remains is not just a policy vacuum, but an ontological crisis. Higher education must now confront the truth that its democratic character was never intrinsic, only performed — and that once the performance ceased to serve the state, it was abandoned without ceremony.

---

Sources

• U.S. Department of Education, “Dear Colleague Letter” on Title VI compliance (2025)

• Congressional Budget Office, Title IV Funding Reductions via Budget Reconciliation (2025)

• Program case studies: Durham Tech’s Hope Renovations; Bulls Academy workforce development initiative

• Historical analysis of the GI Bill and community college expansion, American Council on Education archives

• Interviews with community college presidents involved in Education for All coalition (2025)

• Harvard University endowment and diversity program litigation filings, 2024–2025

Why Won’t Ohio State Pay for Richard Strauss’s Sexual Assault Scandal?

Ohio State University (OSU), one of the nation’s largest public universities, remains mired in controversy over its handling of sexual abuse committed by Dr. Richard Strauss, the former team doctor accused of assaulting hundreds of student-athletes from the late 1970s through the 1990s. Despite overwhelming evidence and mounting public pressure, OSU has refused to settle lawsuits filed by survivors, prolonging their struggle for justice.

The HBO Max documentary Disgraced: The Trial of Richard Strauss has reignited national attention, exposing not only Strauss’s horrific abuse but also the systemic institutional failures that allowed it to continue for nearly two decades. Survivors detail the trauma endured and the university’s decades-long pattern of minimizing complaints and protecting its reputation at the expense of student safety.

Jim Jordan’s Controversial Role

The scandal extends beyond OSU’s administrative leadership into political territory. Congressman Jim Jordan, a former Ohio State wrestling coach during much of the period when Strauss’s abuse occurred, has faced intense scrutiny and criticism. Multiple survivors allege that Jordan was aware of the abuse and failed to act, though he has consistently denied any knowledge or involvement.

Jordan’s political prominence has complicated public discourse around the case. As a powerful figure in Washington, D.C., and a vocal advocate for conservative causes, his perceived silence has been deeply troubling to survivors and advocates demanding accountability. His defenders argue there is no concrete evidence implicating him, but the HBO Max documentary highlights survivor testimonies suggesting a culture of silence in which even coaching staff ignored or dismissed warning signs.

A Legacy of Silence and Denial at OSU

For decades, reports of abuse by Strauss were reportedly ignored or covered up by OSU’s leadership, including athletic department officials who prioritized winning and prestige. The university’s initial responses to allegations frequently minimized their severity or shifted blame to victims. Internal investigations confirmed a pattern of institutional failure.

The HBO Max documentary illuminates the depth of the trauma endured by survivors and the barriers they faced coming forward. Yet OSU has largely resisted accountability, focusing instead on legal defenses to avoid costly settlements.

Why Won’t Ohio State Pay?

Ohio State’s refusal to settle represents more than a legal strategy; it reveals the university’s ongoing struggle to accept responsibility. The potential financial liability could reach hundreds of millions of dollars given the scale of abuse. OSU appears to prioritize protecting its finances and reputation over providing restitution to survivors.

Observers suggest OSU’s delay tactics aim to exhaust plaintiffs, hoping some will drop their claims due to frustration or financial hardship. Meanwhile, funds are directed toward legal defenses rather than survivor support or institutional reform.

Broader Implications for College Athletics and Accountability

The Strauss case is a microcosm of a larger crisis in college sports, where institutions often enable abuse by valuing athletic success over student safety. The HBO Max documentary is a stark call for systemic reforms, transparency, and survivor-centered justice.

While OSU has taken some steps toward reform, survivors and advocates insist that without financial restitution and full acknowledgment of institutional failures, healing remains out of reach.

The Continuing Fight for Justice 

Survivors continue their fight for justice amid increasing public scrutiny. Ohio State’s refusal to settle is a challenge to its integrity and public trust. The involvement of figures like Jim Jordan adds complexity and underscores the intertwined nature of institutional and political accountability.

As awareness grows, pressure mounts on OSU and universities nationwide to reform policies, support survivors, and confront past abuses honestly. Disgraced: The Trial of Richard Strauss is a sobering reminder that silence and denial only deepen wounds—and that justice, though delayed, must ultimately be delivered.

---

Sources:

• Disgraced: The Trial of Richard Strauss, HBO Max, 2025

• Investigative reporting from The Columbus Dispatch

• Legal filings in the Strauss lawsuits

• Public statements and congressional records concerning Jim Jordan

• Official Ohio State University communications

Trump's Jobs Plan: Soldiers, ICE Agents, and Detention Camp Guards

Former President Donald Trump has long marketed himself as a job creator, promising economic revival and prosperity for working Americans. Yet, his latest “Jobs Plan” reveals a far narrower and more troubling vision of employment growth — one rooted not in manufacturing, infrastructure, or green energy, but in expanding militarized enforcement and immigration control. The new jobs Trump champions are overwhelmingly those of soldiers, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, and detention camp guards.

Militarizing the Workforce

At the core of Trump’s employment proposal is a dramatic expansion of the armed forces. This includes increased recruitment and funding to build a larger, more heavily equipped military. While proponents argue this enhances national security and deterrence, the plan’s emphasis on military jobs underscores a troubling prioritization of conflict readiness over social investment.

The creation of more soldier positions aligns with Trump’s broader geopolitical posture, which has often leaned toward aggressive military stances and expanded overseas engagement. These jobs are often physically demanding and high risk, and critics note they primarily serve the interests of defense contractors and political ambitions rather than domestic economic health.

Expanding ICE and Border Enforcement

Equally central to the plan is a push to enlarge Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s workforce. Trump calls for more ICE agents tasked with enforcing immigration laws through raids, deportations, and border patrols. This expansion comes at a time when ICE is already deeply controversial for its role in separating families, conducting workplace raids, and detaining undocumented immigrants under often harsh conditions.

The jobs Trump promotes in this sector are part of a broader immigration enforcement regime that critics have labeled as cruel and counterproductive. By hiring more agents, the plan essentially aims to intensify policing of immigrant communities, heightening fear and insecurity for millions of people living in the United States.

Guarding Detention Facilities

The plan also supports the growth of detention facilities to house increasing numbers of immigrants and asylum seekers. This includes hiring more detention camp guards to staff these centers. These roles involve overseeing often overcrowded and under-resourced facilities, where detainees have reported inadequate medical care, poor sanitation, and in some cases, abuse.

The expansion of detention capacity—and its associated workforce—raises ethical and human rights concerns. Advocates emphasize that these are not “jobs” in the conventional sense that foster healthy communities; rather, they sustain a system of incarceration that many compare to modern-day internment camps. Such employment ties economic opportunity to the perpetuation of incarceration and marginalization.

What This Means for Economic Justice

By focusing job creation on soldiers, ICE agents, and detention camp guards, Trump’s plan sidesteps opportunities for broad-based economic recovery. Sectors like education, healthcare, renewable energy, and infrastructure — which could generate millions of jobs with long-term benefits — receive little to no attention.

This approach reinforces a vision of the economy that values security and control over social well-being and equity. It also disproportionately impacts communities of color and immigrants, entangling economic policy with racialized enforcement practices.

The consequences are clear: job growth tied to expanding enforcement agencies may deliver short-term employment but risks deepening social divisions, eroding civil rights, and perpetuating systemic injustice.

Alternatives and the Path Forward

Critics urge policymakers and the public to demand investment in sectors that build human capital, address climate change, and support vulnerable populations. Sustainable job creation should focus on rebuilding schools, hospitals, public transportation, and clean energy infrastructure — sectors proven to stimulate the economy while enhancing quality of life.

At a time when economic inequality is widening and the climate crisis intensifies, the Trump Jobs Plan offers a stark choice: continue down a path where employment grows through militarization and enforcement, or pursue a future centered on justice, opportunity, and sustainable development.

Sources:

• The Intercept: "The Human Cost of ICE’s Expanding Enforcement"

• Reuters: "U.S. Military Recruitment and Funding Under Trump"

• The Guardian: "Conditions Inside U.S. Immigration Detention Centers"

• National Public Radio (NPR): "ICE Staffing Increases Amid Immigration Crackdown"

• Center for Immigration Studies: "Employment Trends in Immigration Enforcement"

Understanding the Challenges of U.S. Higher Education for Canadian Students: Debt, Credentialing, and Cross-Border Policies

Each year, thousands of Canadian students choose to study in the United States, attracted by diverse programs and research opportunities. According to Statistics Canada, nearly 27,000 Canadians were enrolled in U.S. institutions during the 2021–2022 academic year. However, pursuing U.S. education presents distinct financial and regulatory challenges that are often overlooked.

Navigating Student Debt
While Canadian students have access to government-backed loans in Canada, studying in the U.S. means contending with higher tuition fees and limited eligibility for U.S. federal student loans. Canadian borrowers frequently turn to private lenders or Canadian banks offering international education loans, often with higher interest rates and complex repayment terms.

A 2022 report by the Canadian Federation of Students found that Canadian students studying abroad carry an average debt of CAD 35,000 (~$26,000 USD), a significant portion attributable to international tuition and living costs. Currency exchange rate fluctuations can further increase repayment burdens.

Credential Recognition and Employment Barriers
Degrees earned in the U.S. are generally recognized in Canada, but some regulated professions pose barriers. For example, the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board requires Canadian-specific certification, and healthcare professionals must undergo additional licensing exams. The Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials reports that about 15% of Canadian graduates from U.S. institutions experience delays or difficulties in credential recognition.

This disconnect can impact employment prospects and wage potential. According to a 2023 Statistics Canada survey, roughly 20% of Canadian graduates from foreign universities reported underemployment or working outside their field within two years of graduation.

Impact of Cross-Border Policies
U.S. visa and work authorization policies such as Optional Practical Training (OPT) affect Canadian students’ ability to gain practical experience in the U.S. after graduation. Although Canadians benefit from streamlined visa processes compared to other international students, recent tightening of U.S. immigration policies has created uncertainty.

Moreover, tax treaties and healthcare coverage differences complicate financial planning for Canadian students in the U.S. Understanding these policies is essential for managing both academic and post-graduation transitions.

Why Canadian Students Should Stay Informed
Canadian students and families investing in U.S. education need clear information on financial aid options, credentialing processes, and immigration regulations. HEI’s investigative reporting offers insights into these complexities, helping prospective students make informed decisions and avoid financial pitfalls.

---

Sources:

• Statistics Canada, “Canadian Students Enrolled Abroad,” 2022

• Canadian Federation of Students, “Student Debt Report,” 2022

• Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials (CICIC), 2023

• Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board guidelines

• Statistics Canada, “Underemployment Among International Graduates,” 2023

• U.S. Department of State, Visa Policies and OPT Guidelines

What Indian Students Need to Know About U.S. Higher Education Debt and Credential Recognition

Thousands of Indian students continue to pursue U.S. higher education each year, seeking advanced degrees and better career opportunities. In the 2022–2023 academic year, India remained the second-largest source of international students in the U.S., with over 200,000 enrolled, according to the Institute of International Education (IIE). Yet, the path to U.S. education is fraught with financial and credentialing challenges that deserve closer scrutiny.

Student Debt and Loan Access
Unlike U.S. citizens, Indian students are generally ineligible for federal student loans and must rely on private loans, often with higher interest rates and stricter terms. A 2021 report by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) found that Indian international students borrowing privately face interest rates ranging from 10% to 15% per annum, far above typical U.S. federal loan rates. Currency fluctuations can increase repayment costs significantly.

Many Indian families take on substantial debt; a 2023 survey by Avanse Financial Services showed that over 60% of Indian students studying abroad rely on education loans, averaging INR 20 lakhs (~$24,000 USD). Yet loan terms, hidden fees, and limited borrower protections often trap families in cycles of debt.

Credential Recognition and Employment
Returning Indian graduates face challenges as U.S. degrees may not seamlessly transfer to regulated Indian professions such as medicine, engineering, or law. The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) has strict rules on recognizing foreign credentials, and lack of equivalency delays or blocks career advancement.

The National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) reports that nearly 30% of Indian graduates from abroad struggle to find jobs that match their qualifications, partly due to mismatched credential recognition. This gap affects long-term earning potential and job security.

Visa and Immigration Policy Impacts
Recent changes to U.S. visa policies have added uncertainty. The U.S. Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) has tightened rules around work permits like Optional Practical Training (OPT), limiting post-graduation employment options. According to the Migration Policy Institute, between 2017 and 2022, Indian student visa approvals saw a decline of nearly 15%, reflecting stricter scrutiny.

Why This Matters
Indian students and their families deserve transparent information and protections to avoid costly mistakes. Investigative reporting reveals how financial products and policies can disadvantage international students disproportionately.

HEI’s coverage aims to empower Indian students with insights on loan options, credential evaluation, and visa regulations—key factors in making informed decisions about studying in the U.S.

---

Sources:

• Institute of International Education (IIE), Open Doors Report 2023

• International Finance Corporation (IFC), “International Student Financing Report,” 2021

• Avanse Financial Services, Indian Student Loan Survey, 2023

• All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) guidelines on foreign credential recognition

• National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) employment data, 2022

• Migration Policy Institute, U.S. Student Visa Trends, 2017–2022

HEI's Most Popular Recent Articles

Across the Higher Education Inquirer’s most-read articles, including List of Schools with Strong Indicators of Misconduct, Evidence for Borrower Defense Claims, The Hidden Crisis: Debt and Inequality Among Ph.D. Graduates, and Chinese College Meltdown: Credential Inflation and the Crisis in Higher Education Employment, a distinct pattern emerges that reflects HEI’s core commitment to exposing power imbalances and illuminating the hidden costs embedded in higher education.

Central to these stories is an unwavering focus on accountability and uncovering misconduct. The reporting calls out institutions with clear signs of unethical behavior and scrutinizes leaders who prioritize profit and prestige over student welfare, as seen in pieces like Santa Ono: Take the Money and Run. This unflinching stance resonates with readers who crave transparency and truth amid a landscape often clouded by spin and silence.

Economic and structural inequality threads through much of the coverage, connecting personal financial struggles to systemic failures. From the burden of debt weighing on Ph.D. graduates in The Hidden Crisis: Debt and Inequality Among Ph.D. Graduates to the growing problem of credential inflation devaluing degrees as detailed in Degrees of Discontent: Credentialism, Inflation, and the Global Education Crisis, these narratives reveal higher education as a tool of economic stratification rather than a guaranteed path to opportunity. Readers see their own hardships reflected in this broader critique of entrenched power and privilege.

The Higher Education Inquirer situates these contemporary crises within broader historical and global contexts. Stories like Camp Mystic: A Century of Privilege, Exclusion, and Resilience Along the Guadalupe and the coverage of global credential inflation emphasize that these challenges are neither new nor isolated. They are manifestations of ongoing systems of class and racial stratification shaped by layered policies and politics.

Political and institutional power, from conservative attacks on intellectualism highlighted in Trump’s War on Intellectualism Is a Threat to Democracy—But Elite Universities Aren’t Innocent Victims to liberal administrations’ partial debt relief programs covered in Biden-Harris Administration Announces Final Student Loan Forgiveness and Borrower Assistance Actions (US Department of Education), is examined with a critical eye. Avoiding partisan cheerleading, HEI’s articles assess outcomes and motivations alike, revealing how all sides often fall short of addressing the real needs of those most affected by higher education’s shortcomings.

A direct, investigative tone defines HEI’s reporting style. The publication favors evidence over euphemism, facts over empty rhetoric, and is unafraid to “name names” or challenge elite narratives. This clear-eyed approach attracts readers hungry for unvarnished truth and meaningful accountability.

The stories’ appeal also lies in their specificity and depth. Rather than abstract generalizations, these articles deliver carefully documented accounts focused on named institutions, individuals, and policies. This grounded approach builds credibility and fosters sharing among activists, academics, borrowers, and advocates.

Together, these elements form the distinctive formula behind the Higher Education Inquirer’s most impactful work—breaking through misinformation, challenging entrenched interests, and centering the lived realities behind the headlines.

---

Sources:
Higher Education Inquirer archives, reader engagement analytics, public reports on higher education misconduct, debt and credential inflation studies, political analysis of education policy, community feedback from borrower and academic advocacy groups.

Music as Medicine

American life demands constant productivity, endless credentialing, and the ability to “push through” mental and physical exhaustion. In this kind of system, the healing power of music often gets overlooked. But for students drowning in debt and anxiety, and for workers scraping by on insecure jobs, music is not a luxury—it’s medicine.

Not the kind prescribed in a bottle, or preached from a wellness seminar, but the kind that gets passed around like food among the hungry. The kind that makes survival just a little more possible.

Rhythm as Resistance

Punk delivers a pulse. Hip hop confronts. Lo-fi offers stillness. Soul mourns and uplifts. Gospel affirms. Cumbia moves bodies and memory alike. Every genre has a place in the emotional survival kit. Music provides what many institutions will not: solace, solidarity, self-definition, and release.

In moments of despair or burnout, songs become tools. They make it easier to study through pain, to organize in the face of injustice, or to get through another shift when the body wants to quit.

Music isn’t an escape—it’s a way through.

Crisis of Mind and Spirit

The student mental health crisis isn’t new, but it’s getting worse. Depression, anxiety, panic attacks, and burnout are rising, especially among working-class students, queer students, first-generation students, and students of color. Most colleges still underfund counseling centers while promoting toxic grind culture as “excellence.”

The workforce behind higher ed—adjunct professors, custodians, food service workers, library aides—faces its own mental and physical toll. Poverty wages, no benefits, unpredictable schedules. Institutions offer self-care slogans but rarely structural care.

Music fills that gap. It helps people regulate, reflect, and remember who they are beyond their role as a debtor, a grade, or a disposable employee.

Better Than Drugs. Better Than Casual Sex.

Music can do what substances and momentary escapes can’t. It doesn’t just numb. It heals. It doesn’t demand something in return. It gives freely.

It’s better than drugs. Better than casual sex. Not because it replaces pleasure or distraction—but because it doesn’t disappear when the high fades or the night ends. Music stays. It strengthens memory. It affirms identity. It provides both an outlet and a connection.

One song can bring someone back from the edge. One mixtape can hold together a semester of struggle. One shared playlist can spark a sense of belonging in a student who otherwise feels invisible.

Soundtrack to Survival

Labor movements have always known this. Music builds morale, strengthens solidarity, and carries memory. From protest anthems to spoken word to DIY tracks shared over group chats, students and workers use sound as shield and weapon.

A cafeteria worker begins a shift with cumbia in their ears. A grad student blocks out burnout with jazz. An adjunct powers through grading with Nina Simone. A student protester blasts Kendrick Lamar from a portable speaker before a sit-in. These are not just habits. These are survival strategies.

Political Practice in Every Note

Songs carry more than rhythm. They carry critique, hope, rebellion, and care. They are blueprints for a world where people matter more than profits. Music doesn’t just reflect the present—it helps imagine the future.

In the face of debt peonage, student surveillance, and wage theft, music reminds people of their worth. The right track becomes a reminder: You are not what the system says you are. You are not alone.

Music doesn’t require a login, a tuition payment, or a therapist’s referral. It’s available on bus rides, late nights, walkouts, break rooms, and dorm corners. It teaches without condescension. It organizes without hierarchy. It heals without permission.

The HEI Perspective

Most discussions of education policy focus on financial models, enrollment trends, or test scores. But we believe emotional and cultural survival matters just as much. Especially when institutions are failing those they claim to serve.

At the Higher Education Inquirer, we listen to what gets students and workers through the day. Not because it’s trendy—but because it’s urgent.

Music keeps people going when systems fail. That makes it a public good. A political force. And yes, a kind of medicine.

Healing begins when people feel heard. Rhythm helps carry the weight.

—

The Higher Education Inquirer
Coming soon: Soundtrack for Resistance – curated by students and workers.

The Higher Education Inquirer: Investigating the Dark Corners of U.S. Higher Ed

For nearly a decade, the Higher Education Inquirer (HEI) has cultivated a reputation for relentless, independent journalism in a field often dominated by press-release rewrites and trade-conference boosterism. In 2024 and 2025, that commitment has been on full display, with a series of investigations that not only expose institutional negligence and corporate greed, but also demand structural change.

Following the Money: GI Bill Loopholes and Veteran Betrayal

One of HEI’s most impactful 2025 stories examined how billions in GI Bill funds—more than Pell Grants or state scholarships—are diverted to for-profit and low-performing nonprofit institutions. Despite promises of career advancement, many veterans end up underemployed and in debt. The reporting points to deliberate policy gaps, such as the weakened 90–10 rule, that incentivize predatory recruitment over educational quality.

Student Debt Transparency: A FOIA Offensive

HEI has also launched an ambitious Freedom of Information Act campaign to shed light on the federal student loan portfolio and on how rarely student loan debt is discharged through bankruptcy. Requests to the Department of Education seek data going back to 1965—records that could help quantify decades of policy drift away from borrower relief.

The FOIA strategy doesn’t stop at the Department of Education. HEI has queried the Securities and Exchange Commission for complaint data against online program managers 2U and Ambow Education, bringing corporate accountability into sharper focus.

Beyond the Campus: Immigration, Religion, and Geopolitics

While student debt remains a central concern, HEI has broadened its investigative reach. In March 2025, it filed a FOIA with the State Department for details on more than 300 revoked student visas, a move to illuminate opaque policies that can upend lives without public explanation.

Other pieces have examined the rise of Christian cybercharter schools, warning of a drift toward ideological indoctrination in taxpayer-funded education. Internationally, HEI has scrutinized the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’s U.S. media tour, questioning the intersection of higher education, faith-based advocacy, and political agendas.

Why This Work Matters

What makes HEI’s journalism unique is its sustained follow-through. Many outlets publish a single exposé and move on. HEI revisits stories months or years later, tracking the real-world consequences of policy changes and institutional behavior. This persistence has helped keep public attention on issues like the Corinthian Colleges collapse and the broader failure to deliver promised student debt relief.

By pairing data-driven reporting with insider accounts and whistleblower input, HEI not only documents abuse but also lays out pathways for reform. In a higher education system where financialized logic often outweighs student welfare, that combination is increasingly rare—and increasingly necessary.

---

Sources:

• Higher Education Inquirer

• Higher Education Inquirer – GI Bill Reform

• University Leadership Central

• Student Affairs Connection

New York City Expands Student Loan Relief Program Amid Federal Overhaul

On August 7, 2025, Mayor Eric Adams announced that a citywide student-loan assistance program—previously limited to civil servants—will now be available to all eligible New Yorkers. Administered in partnership with the financial-technology company Summer, the initiative provides personalized guidance to help borrowers navigate complex repayment choices.

The expansion comes during a time of sweeping federal changes that are reshaping the student-loan repayment system. Millions of borrowers nationwide are losing access to popular repayment plans and facing higher long-term costs. For New York City’s 1.4 million student-loan borrowers, the local program offers a modest but timely safety net.

In July 2025, Congress passed the “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” restructuring the student-loan system and eliminating most existing income-driven repayment plans, including SAVE, PAYE, and ICR. By July 1, 2028, borrowers will be left with only an expanded Income-Based Repayment plan or the new Repayment Assistance Plan. Interest resumed for SAVE borrowers on August 1, 2025, adding an average of $3,500 per year in costs. The Repayment Assistance Plan will calculate payments between 1 and 10 percent of adjusted gross income, require a minimum payment of $10 per month, and extend loan forgiveness to thirty years. Consolidated Parent PLUS loans will now be eligible for Income-Based Repayment, giving families more flexibility. Analysts warn that these changes could push many borrowers toward private lenders, where interest rates may be higher and borrower protections more limited.

For New York City borrowers, the expanded local program offers critical help when federal protections are being reduced. Borrowers can receive one-on-one counseling and repayment optimization through Summer at no cost. With the Repayment Assistance Plan launching in July 2026 and older plans disappearing by 2028, New Yorkers face an urgent need to evaluate their repayment strategies. The changes are especially important for public service workers in the city, many of whom rely on the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program and could see shifts in their eligibility or timelines.

Federal loan policy is moving toward fewer and longer repayment options, with the possibility of higher total costs. New York City’s program offers an important safeguard, but it will only help those who know about it and take advantage of its services. For HEI professionals and student-support staff, ensuring that borrowers understand their changing options is now a pressing responsibility.

---

Sources
BK Reader – NYC Launches Student Loan Reduction Program for All New Yorkers
Times of India – Trump’s Student Loan Reset
The Sun – Big, Beautiful Bill and Student Loan Payments
Business Insider – Private Lending Expected to Expand Under New Rules
NerdWallet – Understanding the Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP)

Troubled Future: Data Centers, Crypto, and EPA Downsizing

The environmental costs of digital infrastructure and financial speculation are rising rapidly, while federal oversight remains inconsistent and under-resourced. Data centers and cryptocurrency mining now consume vast amounts of electricity and water across the United States, yet much of this resource use is poorly tracked or omitted from public emissions reporting. At the same time, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has seen significant staffing losses, rule reversals, and new threats to its institutional survival.

These trends are not isolated. Together, they reflect a shift toward energy-intensive technologies, deregulation of high-polluting industries, and a weakened capacity to respond to environmental harm. The long-term consequences will be difficult to reverse.

The Energy and Water Demands of Data Centers

Data centers are expanding to meet demand for cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and digital storage. These facilities rely heavily on continuous electricity and water for cooling. Some consume millions of gallons of water per day, and projections show their electricity use may double in the next few years. Many are located in areas already under water stress.

The environmental impact of data centers goes beyond their daily operations. Construction materials, server manufacturing, and on-site diesel backup generators all contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Yet these emissions are often excluded from formal greenhouse gas inventories, especially when they occur outside the facility’s geographic or corporate boundaries.

Crypto Mining as an Unregulated Energy Sector

Cryptocurrency mining, especially Bitcoin, requires massive computing power. These operations have migrated to U.S. states with low energy prices and minimal regulatory oversight. Bitcoin mining alone now consumes more electricity annually than many countries.

The emissions from crypto mining are significant, but they are not consistently tracked. Facilities often operate below emissions reporting thresholds or through decentralized networks that fall outside EPA scrutiny. In many cases, power is sourced from fossil fuels, and companies are not required to disclose their energy mix or carbon footprint.

Residents living near crypto facilities have reported noise, pollution, and local grid strain. Yet enforcement is limited or nonexistent in most jurisdictions.

The Shrinking Capacity of the EPA

The Environmental Protection Agency has lost hundreds of experienced staff since 2017, including scientists and enforcement personnel. Budget cuts, political pressure, and legal constraints have made it difficult for the agency to maintain oversight of fast-growing industries like digital infrastructure and blockchain technology.

Many environmental rules were rolled back between 2017 and 2020, increasing overall emissions and reducing safeguards for air and water. Although some regulations have been restored, the agency remains under political threat. Proposals to reorganize or dismantle the EPA altogether have resurfaced, potentially removing the last federal layer of accountability in many regions.

Greenhouse gas reporting systems still rely heavily on corporate self-reporting. Emerging sectors such as AI, crypto, and hyperscale data storage are not fully integrated into federal carbon inventories, and indirect emissions—such as those from supply chains and off-site electricity generation—are often omitted entirely.

A Delayed and Unequal Cost

The consequences of these developments will accumulate slowly but with increasing severity. Emissions released today will remain in the atmosphere for decades. Water used to cool servers will not be available to communities experiencing drought or contamination.

Those who profit from these trends—tech corporations, crypto investors, and political donors—will not be the ones facing the costs. The burden will fall on future generations, frontline communities, and the global South.

Institutions of higher education, many of which depend on cloud platforms, server farms, and AI applications, are deeply connected to this digital growth. They also have an opportunity—and arguably a responsibility—to examine the long-term impacts of these systems and hold corporate partners accountable.

Technological advancement has material consequences. The energy and water behind our digital lives are not virtual, and the lack of environmental regulation only increases the harm. Without accurate measurement and stronger enforcement, damage will continue without acknowledgement—and without remedy.

Sources
International Energy Agency, Electricity 2024
U.S. Department of Energy, Quadrennial Technology Review, 2023
Ma, J. et al., “The Water Footprint of Data Centers,” Nature Communications, 2023
Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, 2023
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Crypto-Assets Report, 2022
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 2024
Government Accountability Office, EPA Workforce Report, 2021
Brookings Institution, Deregulation Tracker, 2020
Greenpeace USA, Poisoned by Pollution: Crypto Mining’s Environmental Toll, 2022
ProPublica, The Real Cost of the Cloud, 2023

The Data on Marijuana Harms: A Higher Education Inquirer Perspective

Amid the normalization of marijuana use across the United States, the risks and costs associated with the drug are often minimized or ignored altogether. In academic settings, this normalization presents a public health challenge that intersects with issues of student success, mental health, and institutional responsibility.

Research over the past decade has revealed a set of concerns with both recreational and medical cannabis use—particularly among adolescents and young adults, the age group that encompasses most traditional college students. According to a 2024 report from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), daily marijuana use among college students has reached historic highs, with more than 11% reporting daily or near-daily consumption. While legalization has reduced arrests and the stigma of use, it has also coincided with increases in cannabis-related hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and reported cases of Cannabis Use Disorder (CUD).

Cognitive impacts are especially relevant in educational settings. Multiple longitudinal studies, including those published in JAMA Psychiatry and The Lancet Psychiatry, have linked regular cannabis use with decreased memory, attention, and learning outcomes. These impairments are often more pronounced in individuals who began using the drug in adolescence. A 2022 study conducted at Duke University found measurable IQ decline in long-term users who began before age 18.

There are also growing concerns about the mental health effects of high-potency cannabis products, now commonly available in legal markets. THC concentrations in commercial marijuana have increased significantly in the past two decades, with some concentrates exceeding 80-90% THC. The increased potency has been associated with heightened risks of psychosis, particularly in genetically predisposed individuals. A 2019 study led by researchers in the UK and Europe found that daily use of high-THC cannabis increased the risk of psychotic disorders by a factor of four to five, compared to non-users.

The link between marijuana and anxiety or depression is less clear-cut but increasingly studied. While some individuals use marijuana to self-medicate for anxiety, evidence suggests that chronic use can worsen symptoms over time. Colleges and universities have reported rising levels of anxiety, depression, and suicidality among students, raising questions about whether cannabis use is a contributing factor or a response to already worsening mental health conditions.

Another area of concern is academic performance and persistence. A multi-institution study published in Addictive Behaviors in 2023 found that regular cannabis use was associated with lower GPA and increased likelihood of dropping out. These findings are consistent across different types of institutions—public, private, and community colleges. At the same time, many campus counseling and health centers are ill-equipped to address substance use disorders, particularly those involving marijuana, which is often not viewed as a serious problem by students or staff.

The cannabis industry has also become a lobbying force in education and public health discourse. Legal cannabis companies, like their counterparts in alcohol and tobacco, have invested in youth-oriented branding, influencer marketing, and campus-adjacent advertising. This has occurred with relatively little pushback from higher education institutions or state governments, many of which have financial interests in cannabis tax revenues.

As more states legalize marijuana for recreational or medicinal use, the responsibility of higher education institutions to respond thoughtfully and evidence-based becomes more urgent. Silence or ambiguity can be interpreted as approval. At the same time, overreaction risks alienating students and perpetuating distrust. A public health approach—grounded in data, transparency, and consistent messaging—may offer the most constructive way forward.

Sources:

National Institute on Drug Abuse. “Monitoring the Future Survey, 2024.” University of Michigan Institute for Social Research.
Meier, M. H., et al. (2012). “Persistent cannabis users show neuropsychological decline from childhood to midlife.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Di Forti, M., et al. (2019). “The contribution of cannabis use to variation in the incidence of psychotic disorder across Europe.” The Lancet Psychiatry.
Arria, A. M., et al. (2023). “Marijuana use and academic outcomes among college students: A multi-institution study.” Addictive Behaviors.
Hall, W., & Lynskey, M. (2020). “Assessing the public health impacts of legalizing recreational cannabis use: the US experience.” World Psychiatry.
JAMA Psychiatry. (2021). “Association of cannabis potency with mental health outcomes.”
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). “Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results from the 2022 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.”

"Why Should I Bring a Child Into This?": Gen Z’s Reproductive Strike and What It Says About Higher Education and the Climate Crisis

A recent report covered by MSN reveals a growing phenomenon: millions of teenagers in the United States say they never plan to have children—and one of the leading reasons is climate change. This sobering shift in personal and generational priorities is not just a cultural footnote. It is a profound indictment of the systems that failed to offer hope for the future. And among those systems, higher education plays an overlooked but complicit role.

The article, originally reported by USA Today, quotes students across the country who describe the prospect of parenting as irresponsible, even cruel, given the current climate trajectory. Some reference collapsing ecosystems, rising sea levels, extreme weather, and political inaction. Others cite the emotional toll of living in a world where they believe things will only get worse.

For those of us at the Higher Education Inquirer, these testimonies hit with more than just empathy. They reflect the culmination of decades of institutional neglect—where universities have profited off fossil fuel investments, watered down sustainability programs, partnered with carbon-intensive corporations, and taught apolitical STEM curricula as if climate denial wasn’t a social phenomenon to be understood and confronted.

Beyond “Climate Anxiety”: A Rational Response

The term climate anxiety is often used to pathologize young people’s fears. But what if their decision not to reproduce isn’t just emotional—it’s rational? These teens are seeing the long view. They’re watching coral reefs bleach, forests burn, heat records break monthly, and global elites gather for climate summits with little but platitudes to show.

Their refusal to have children is not apathy. It’s resistance. A form of protest. What used to be a personal decision has become a political one.

The Higher Ed Connection

Higher education has long claimed to be a leader in sustainability, climate science, and public discourse. And yet, when it comes to confronting the deeper roots of ecological destruction—capitalism, colonialism, the military-industrial complex, and yes, the higher education system itself—most institutions have either gone silent or opted for greenwashing.

Universities continue to:

• Accept massive donations from fossil fuel billionaires.

• House think tanks and business schools that promote endless economic growth.

• Invest endowments in carbon-heavy portfolios.

• Sell students the myth that a degree will solve their personal future, even as the collective future deteriorates.

Meanwhile, young people in middle school and high school are already making life-altering decisions based on what they see—and what they don’t see: real accountability or meaningful change from their elders’ institutions.

A Warning Higher Ed Can’t Ignore

If colleges and universities are serious about their claims to be incubators of the future, they can’t ignore the fact that a significant portion of that future now feels it has no reason to exist. Young people are not only opting out of parenthood—they are increasingly questioning the value of traditional life scripts: college, career, mortgage, family. The entire package is unraveling.

This is not just a demographic trend. It’s a moral judgment.

The institutions that educated yesterday’s leaders now face a credibility crisis. Students are watching closely. And they are making decisions—about reproduction, education, consumption, and activism—based on what they see and what they refuse to inherit.

Higher education must reckon with the reality that its credibility, like the climate, is heating toward a breaking point.

---

Source:
"Millions of teens report they won't ever have kids due to climate change — here's why." MSN / USA Today, August 2023.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/millions-of-teens-report-they-won-t-ever-have-kids-due-to-climate-change-here-s-why/ss-AA1JT4Pg

LIVE SWAT: Shots fired, major police action, active shooter at Emory University campus in Atlanta

Trump DOJ Intensifies “Revenge Tour” Amid Epstein Fallout

The Department of Justice, under the renewed influence of former President Donald Trump’s network, appears to be escalating a politically charged “revenge tour.” Critics argue this wave of federal legal actions is increasingly aimed at discrediting prominent critics—most notably New York Attorney General Letitia James—as a distraction from the persistent and troubling Epstein scandal and its unsettling connections to elite institutions.

HEI’s Ongoing Epstein Reporting

HEI has consistently sounded the alarm on how universities and higher education institutions are complicit in the Epstein network—whether through silence, financial entanglements, or willful ignorance. As highlighted in recent pieces like "Are the Epstein Files the Watergate of Our Time?", HEI stressed how the scandal’s true weight lies not only in its crimes but in the cover‑ups and institutional complicity that enabled it Higher Education Inquirer.

An editorial titled "Elite Higher Education and the Epstein Files" went further, warning that restoring any moral authority in academe demands radical transparency—disclosing donor histories, instituting independent oversight, and dismantling the secrecy that protects powerful actors Higher Education Inquirer.

HEI also described how Epstein’s infiltration of higher ed wasn’t incidental—it was symptomatic of neoliberal corruption: where ethical standards bow to big money, and university allegiance lies with donors, not truth or justice Higher Education Inquirer+1.

The DOJ’s Target: Letitia James

Now, against this backdrop, the Justice Department has launched aggressive scrutiny of Letitia James’s record:

• Subpoenas issued today by the DOJ and an Albany grand jury seek documents related to her successful $454–$500 million civil fraud lawsuit against Trump and her NRA fraud case PoliticoReutersThe GuardianThe Washington PostNew York Post. Authorities are probing whether her actions violated Trump’s civil rights—a highly unusual inquiry into a sitting attorney general ReutersThe Washington Post.

• Parallel to that, there's a separate investigation into mortgage fraud based on allegations she manipulated property records to get favorable loan terms—a referral reportedly emanating from the Federal Housing Finance Agency New York PostPolitico.

James rejects the charges as politically motivated retaliation—labeling them part of Trump’s “revenge tour” designed to punish opponents for doing their jobs PoliticoThe Washington Post.

Former FBI Official James E. Dennehy Forced Out Amid DOJ Clashes

Compounding the turmoil, former FBI assistant director James E. Dennehy, who led the FBI’s New York Field Office, was forced to resign in early 2025. Dennehy reportedly clashed with the DOJ over demands to identify agents involved in January 6 investigations and expressed concern that federal law enforcement officials were being removed for simply doing their jobs.

His departure underscores ongoing instability and politicization within key federal law enforcement agencies during this period of intensified DOJ retaliation.

Why This Matters for Higher Education

HEI’s mission is to expose how power, money, and politics distort institutions meant to serve the public good. The Trump DOJ’s apparent weaponization of federal power to target legal critics—under the guise of legitimacy—poses a broader risk: it could eclipse critical investigations into elite networks like Epstein’s. Distracting from those deeper, systemic stories benefits entrenched power structures and lets accountability fade.

Sources:

• HEI articles on Trump’s DOJ politicization and Letitia James investigations

• FBI leadership changes, 2025 (James E. Dennehy’s resignation)

• Investigative reports on the Epstein case and its fallout