The Future of Federal Student Loans

The U.S. student loan system, now exceeding $1.7 trillion in debt and affecting over 40 million borrowers, is facing significant challenges. As political pressures rise, the management of student loans could be significantly altered. A combination of potential privatization, the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education (ED), and a new role for the Department of the Treasury raises critical questions about the future of the system.

U.S. Department of Education: Strained Resources and Outsourcing

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) is responsible for managing federal student loan servicing, loan forgiveness programs, and borrower defense to repayment (BDR) claims. However, ED has faced ongoing issues with understaffing and inefficiency, particularly as many functions have been outsourced to contractors. Companies like Maximus (including subsidiaries like AidVantage) manage much of the administrative burden for loan servicing. This has raised concerns about accountability and the impact on borrowers, especially those seeking loan relief.

In recent years, ED has also experienced staff reductions and funding cuts, making it difficult to process claims or maintain high-quality service. The potential for further cuts or even the elimination of the department could exacerbate these problems. If ED’s role is diminished, other entities, such as the Department of the Treasury, could assume responsibility for managing the student loan portfolio, though this would present its own set of challenges.

Potential for Privatization of the Student Loan Portfolio

One of the most discussed options for addressing the student loan crisis is the privatization of the federal student loan portfolio. Under previous administration discussions, including those during President Trump’s tenure, there were talks about selling off parts of the student loan portfolio to private companies. This would be done with the aim of reducing the federal deficit.

In 2019, McKinsey & Company was hired by the Trump administration to analyze the value of the student loan portfolio, considering factors such as default rates and economic conditions. While the report's findings were never made public, the idea of transferring the loans to private companies—such as banks or investment firms—remains a possibility.

The consequences of privatizing federal student loans could be significant. Private companies would likely focus on profitability, which could result in stricter repayment terms or less flexibility for borrowers seeking loan forgiveness or other relief options. This shift may reduce borrower protections, making it harder for students to challenge repayment terms or pursue loan discharges.

The Department of the Treasury and its Potential Role

If the U.S. Department of Education is restructured or eliminated, there is a possibility that the Department of the Treasury could step in to manage some aspects of the student loan portfolio. The Treasury is responsible for the country’s financial systems and debt management, so it could, in theory, handle the federal student loan portfolio from a financial oversight perspective.

However, while the Treasury has experience in financial management, it lacks the specialized knowledge of student loans and borrower protections that the Department of Education currently provides. For example, the Treasury would need to find ways to process complex Borrower Defense to Repayment claims, a responsibility ED currently manages. In 2023, over 750,000 Borrower Defense claims were pending, with thousands of claims related to predatory practices at for-profit colleges such as University of Phoenix, ITT Tech, and Kaplan University (now known as Purdue Global). Additionally, some of these for-profit schools were able to reorganize and continue operating under different names, further complicating the situation.

The Treasury could also contract out loan servicing, but this could increase reliance on profit-driven companies, possibly compromising the interests of borrowers in favor of financial performance.

Borrower Defense Claims and the Impact of For-Profit Schools

A large portion of the Borrower Defense to Repayment claims comes from students who attended for-profit colleges with a history of deceptive practices. These institutions, often referred to as subprime colleges, misled students about job prospects, program outcomes, and accreditation, leaving many with significant student debt but poor employment outcomes.

Data from 2023 revealed that over 750,000 Borrower Defense claims were filed with the Department of Education, many of them against for-profit institutions. The Sweet v. Cardona case showed that more than 200,000 borrowers were expected to receive debt relief after years of waiting. However, the process was slow, with an estimated 16,000 new claims being filed each month, and only 35 ED workers handling these claims. These delays, combined with the uncertainty around the future of ED, leave borrowers vulnerable to prolonged financial hardship. 

Lack of Transparency and Accountability in the System

While the U.S. Department of Education tracks Borrower Defense claims, it does not publish institutional-level data, making it difficult to identify which schools are responsible for the most fraudulent activity. 

In response to this, FOIA requests have been filed by organizations like the National Student Legal Defense Network and the Higher Education Inquirer to obtain detailed information about which institutions are disproportionately affecting borrowers. 

In one such request, the Higher Education Inquirer asked for information regarding claims filed against the University of Phoenix, a school with a significant number of Borrower Defense claims.

The lack of transparency in the system makes it harder for borrowers to make informed decisions about which institutions to attend and limits accountability for schools that have harmed students. If the Treasury or private companies take over management of the loan portfolio, these transparency issues could worsen, as private entities are less likely to prioritize public accountability.

Conclusion

The future of the U.S. student loan system is uncertain, particularly as the Department of Education faces the potential of funding cuts, staff reductions, or even complete dissolution. If ED’s role diminishes or disappears, the Department of the Treasury could take over some functions, but this would raise questions about the fairness and transparency of the system.

The possibility of privatizing the student loan portfolio also looms large, which could shift the focus away from borrower protections and toward financial gain for private companies. For-profit schools, many of which have a history of predatory practices, are responsible for a disproportionate number of Borrower Defense claims, and any move to privatize the loan portfolio could exacerbate the challenges faced by borrowers seeking relief from these institutions.

Ultimately, there is a need for greater transparency and accountability in how the student loan system operates. Whether managed by the Department of Education, the Treasury, or private companies, protecting borrowers and ensuring fairness should remain central to any future reforms. If these issues are not addressed, millions of borrowers will continue to face significant financial hardship.

Erasing History, Erasing Democracy: Trump’s Authoritarian Assault on Education (Henry Giroux, Truthout)

Did you know that Truthout is a nonprofit and independently funded by readers like you? If you value what we do, please support our work with a donation.

Trump appears bent on ridding schools of dangerous practices like critical thinking and an unsanitized study of history.

In the initial days of his second term, President Donald Trump issued several executive orders “seeking to control how schools teach about race and gender, direct more tax dollars to private schools, and deport pro-Palestinian protesters.” On January 29, 2025, he signed the “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling” executive order, which mandates the elimination of curricula that the administration deems as promoting “radical, anti-American ideologies.” This executive order is not just an attack on critical race theory or teachings about systemic racism — it is a cornerstone of an authoritarian ideology designed to eliminate critical thought, suppress historical truth and strip educators of their autonomy. Under the guise of combating “divisiveness,” it advances a broader war on education as a democratizing force, turning schools into dead zones of the imagination. By threatening to strip federal funding from institutions that refuse to conform, this policy functions as an instrument of ideological indoctrination, enforcing a sanitized, nationalistic narrative that erases histories of oppression and resistance while deepening a culture of ignorance and compliance.

Concurrently, President Trump issued the “Expanding Educational Freedom and Opportunity for Families” executive order, aiming to enhance school choice by redirecting federal funds to support charter schools and voucher programs. This policy enables parents to use public funds for private and religious school tuition. While proponents claim that this legislation empowers parents and fosters competition, in reality, it is a calculated effort to defund and privatize public education, undermining it as a democratizing public good. As part of a broader far right assault on education, this policy redirects essential resources away from public schools, deepening educational inequality and advancing an agenda that seeks to erode public investment in a just and equitable society.

In the name of eliminating radical indoctrination in schools, a third executive order, which purportedly aims at ending antisemitism, threatens to deport pro-Palestinian student protesters by revoking their visas, warning that even those legally in the country could be targeted for their political views. In a stark display of authoritarianism, Trump’s executive order unapologetically stated that free speech would not be tolerated. Reuters made this clear in reporting that one fact sheet ominously declared: “I will … quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never before. To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you.”

Trump’s longstanding war on education has taken a more dangerous turn with his incoming order to eliminate the Department of Education through executive fiat. This is not just an attack on bureaucracy; it is a calculated and boldfaced assault on public education itself — an effort to dismantle one of the last remaining institutions or public goods capable of fostering critical thought, historical memory and civic responsibility.

By gutting federal oversight, he is handing the fate of education to reactionary state legislatures and corporate interests, ensuring that knowledge is shaped by a state held captive by billionaires and far right extremists. This is the logic of authoritarianism: to hollow out democratic institutions and replace education with white Christian propaganda and a pedagogy of repression. At issue here is an attempt to render an entire generation defenseless against the very forces seeking to dominate them.

What we are witnessing is not just an educational crisis but a full-scale war on institutions that not only defend democracy but enable it. What is under siege in this attack is not only the critical function of education but the very notion that it should be defined through its vision of creating a central feature of democracy, educating informed and critically engaged citizens.

These executive actions represent an upgraded and broader version of McCarthyite and apartheid-era education that seeks to dictate how schools teach about race and gender, funnel more taxpayer dollars into private institutions, and deport Palestinian protesters. The irony is striking: The White House defends these regressive measures of sanitizing history, stripping away the rights of transgender students and erasing critical race theory as efforts to “end indoctrination in American education.” In truth, this is not about the pursuit of freedom or open inquiry, nor is it about fostering an education that cultivates informed, critically engaged citizens. At its core, this agenda is a deliberate attack on education as a public good — one that threatens to dismantle not only public institutions, but the very essence of public and higher education and its culture of criticism and democracy. The urgency of this moment cannot be overstated: The future of education itself is at stake.

In the raging currents of contemporary political and cultural life, where fascist ideologies are rising, one of the most insidious and all-encompassing forces at play is the violence of forgetting — a plague of historical amnesia. This phenomenon, which I have referred to as “organized forgetting,” describes the systemic erasure of history and its violent consequences, particularly in the public sphere. This is especially evident in the current historical moment, when books are banned in libraries, public schools and higher education across countries, such as the United States, Hungary, India, China and Russia. Ignoring past atrocities, historical injustices and uncomfortable truths about a society’s foundation is not merely an oversight — it constitutes an active form of violence that shapes both our collective consciousness and political realities. What we are witnessing here is an assault by the far right on memory that is inseparable from what Maximillian Alvarez describes as a battle over power — over who is remembered, who is erased, who is cast aside and who is forcibly reduced to something less than human. This struggle is not just about history; it is about whose stories are allowed to shape the present and the future. Alvarez captures this reality with striking clarity and is worth quoting at length:

Among the prizes at stake in the endless war of politics is history itself. The battle for power is always a battle to determine who gets remembered, how they will be recalled, where and in what forms their memories will be preserved. In this battle, there is no room for neutral parties: every history and counter-history must fight and scrap and claw and spread and lodge itself in the world, lest it be forgotten or forcibly erased. All history, in this sense, is the history of empire — a bid for control of that greatest expanse of territory, the past.

Organized forgetting also helped fuel the resurgence of Donald Trump, as truth and reason are being systematically replaced by lies, corruption, denial and the weaponization of memory itself. A culture of questioning, critique and vision is not simply disappearing in the United States — it is actively maligned, disparaged and replaced by a darkness that, as Ezra Klein observes, is “stupefyingly vast, stretching from self-destructive incompetence to muddling incoherence to authoritarian consolidation.”

This erosion affects institutions of law, civil society and education — pillars that rely on memory, informed judgment and evidence to foster historical understanding and civic responsibility. The attack on the common good goes beyond the distractions of an “attention economy” designed to distort reality; it reflects a deliberate effort to sever the ties between history and meaning. Time is reduced to fragmented episodes, stripped of the shared narratives that connect the past, present and future.

This crisis embodies a profound collapse of memory, history, education and democracy itself. A culture of manufactured ignorance — rooted in the rejection of history, facts and critical thought — erases accountability for electing a leader who incited insurrection and branded his opponents as “enemies from within.” Such authoritarian politics thrive on historical amnesia, lulling society into passivity, eroding collective memory and subverting civic agency. This is epitomized by Trump’s declaration on “Fox & Friends” that he would punish schools that teach students accurate U.S. history, including about slavery and racism in the country. The call to silence dangerous memories is inseparable from the violence of state terrorism — a force that censors and dehumanizes dissent, escalating to the punishment, torture and imprisonment of truth-tellers and critics who dare to hold oppressive power accountable.

At its core, the violence of forgetting operates through the denial and distortion of historical events, particularly those that challenge the dominant narratives of power. From the colonial atrocities and the struggles for civil rights to the history of Palestine-Israel relations, many of the most significant chapters of history are either glossed over or erased altogether. This strategic omission serves the interests of those in power, enabling them to maintain control by silencing inconvenient truths. As the historian Timothy Snyder reminds us, by refusing to acknowledge the violence of the past, society makes it far easier to perpetuate injustices in the present. The politics of organized forgetting, the censoring of history and the attack on historical consciousness are fundamental to the rise of far right voices in the U.S. and across the world.

With the rise of regressive memory laws, designed to repress what authoritarian governments consider dangerous and radical interpretations of a country’s past, historical consciousness is transformed into a form of historical amnesia. One vivid example of a regressive memory law was enacted by Trump during his first term. The 1776 Report, which right-wingers defended as a “restoration of American education,” was in fact an attempt to eliminate from the teaching of history any reference to a legacy of colonialism, slavery and movements which highlighted elements of American history that were unconscionable, anti-democratic and morally repugnant. Snyder highlights the emergence of memory laws in a number of states. He writes in a 2021 New York Times article:

As of this writing, five states (Idaho, Iowa, Tennessee, Texas and Oklahoma) have passed laws that direct and restrict discussions of history in classrooms. The Department of Education of a sixth (Florida) has passed guidelines with the same effect. Another 12 state legislatures are still considering memory laws. The particulars of these laws vary. The Idaho law is the most Kafkaesque in its censorship: It affirms freedom of speech and then bans divisive speech. The Iowa law executes the same totalitarian pirouette. The Tennessee and Texas laws go furthest in specifying what teachers may and may not say. In Tennessee teachers must not teach that the rule of law is “a series of power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups.”… The Idaho law mentions Critical Race Theory; the directive from the Florida school board bans it in classrooms. The Texas law forbids teachers from requiring students to understand the 1619 Project. It is a perverse goal: Teachers succeed if students do not understand something.

A major aspect of this forgetting and erasure of historical memory is the role of ignorance, which has become not just widespread but weaponized in modern times. Ignorance, particularly in U.S. society, has shifted from being a passive lack of knowledge to an active refusal to engage with critical issues. This is amplified by the spectacle-driven nature of contemporary media and the increasing normalization of a culture of lies and the embrace of a language of violence, which not only thrives on distraction rather than reflection, but has become a powerful force for spreading bigotry, racial hatred and right-wing lies. In addition, the mainstream media’s obsession with spectacle — be it political drama, celebrity culture or sensationalist stories — often overshadows the more important, yet less glamorous, discussions about historical violence and systemic injustice.

This intellectual neglect allows for a dangerous cycle to persist, where the erasure of history enables the continuation of violence and oppression. Systems of power benefit from this amnesia, as it allows them to maintain the status quo without having to answer for past wrongs. When society refuses to remember or address past injustices — whether it’s slavery, imperialism or economic exploitation — those in power can continue to exploit the present without fear of historical accountability.

To strip education of its critical power is to rob democracy of its transformative potential.

The cultural impact of this organized forgetting is profound. Not only does it create a void in public memory, but it also stunts collective growth. Without the lessons of the past, it becomes nearly impossible to learn from mistakes and address the root causes of social inequalities. The failure to remember makes it harder to demand meaningful change, while reproducing and legitimating ongoing far right assaults on democracy.

The violence of organized forgetting is not a mere act of neglect; it is a deliberate cultural and intellectual assault that undercuts the foundations of any meaningful democracy. By erasing the past, society implicitly condones the ongoing oppression of marginalized groups and perpetuates harmful ideologies that thrive in ignorance. This erasure silences the voices of those who have suffered — denying them the space to speak their truth and demand justice. It is not limited to historical injustices alone; it extends to the present, silencing those who courageously criticize contemporary violence, such as Israel’s U.S.-backed genocidal war on Gaza, and those brave enough to hold power accountable.

The act of forgetting is not passive; it actively supports systems of oppression and censorship, muffling dissent and debate, both of which are essential for a healthy democracy.

Equally dangerous is the form of historical amnesia that has come to dominate our contemporary political and cultural landscape. This organized forgetting feeds into a pedagogy of manufactured ignorance that prioritizes emotion over reason and spectacle over truth. In this process, history is fragmented and distorted, making it nearly impossible to construct a coherent understanding of the past. As a result, public institutions — particularly education — are undermined, as critical thinking and social responsibility give way to shallow, sensationalized narratives. Higher education, once a bastion for the development of civic literacy and the moral imperative of understanding our role as both individuals and social agents, is now attacked by forces seeking to cleanse public memory of past social and political progress. Figures like Trump embody this threat, working to erase the memory of strides made in the name of equality, justice and human decency. This organized assault on historical memory and intellectual rigor strikes at the heart of democracy itself. When we allow the erasure of history and the undermining of critical thought, we risk suffocating the ideals that democracy promises: justice, equality and accountability.

A democracy cannot thrive in the absence of informed and engaged agents that are capable of questioning, challenging and reimagining a future different from the present. Without such citizens, the very notion of democracy becomes a hollow, disembodied ideal — an illusion of freedom without the substance of truth or responsibility. Education, in this context, is not merely a tool for transmitting knowledge; it is the foundation and bedrock of political consciousness. To be educated, to be a citizen, is not a neutral or passive state — it is a vital, active political and moral engagement with the world, grounded in critical thinking and democratic possibility. It is a recognition that the act of learning and the act of being a citizen are inextricable from each other. To strip education of its critical power is to rob democracy of its transformative potential.

Confronting the violence of forgetting requires a shift in how we engage with history. Intellectuals, educators and activists must take up the responsibility of reintroducing the painful truths of the past into public discourse. This is not about dwelling in the past for its own sake, but about understanding its relevance to the present and future. To break the cycles of violence, society must commit to remembering, not just for the sake of memory, but as a critical tool for progress.

Moreover, engaging with history honestly requires recognizing that the violence of forgetting is not a one-time event but a continual process. Systems of power don’t simply forget; they actively work to erase, rewrite and sanitize historical narratives. This means that the fight to remember is ongoing and requires constant vigilance. It’s not enough to simply uncover historical truths; society must work to ensure that these truths are not forgotten again, buried under the weight of media spectacles, ideological repression and political theater.

Ultimately, the violence of forgetting is an obstacle to genuine social change. Without confronting the past — acknowledging the violence and injustices that have shaped our world — we cannot hope to build a more just and informed future. To move forward, any viable democratic social order must reckon with its past, break free from the bonds of ignorance, and commit to creating a future based on knowledge, justice and accountability.

The task of confronting and dismantling the violent structures shaped by the power of forgetting is immense, yet the urgency has never been more pronounced. In an era where the scope and power of new pedagogical apparatuses such as social media and AI dominate our cultural and intellectual landscapes, the challenge becomes even more complex. While they hold potential for education and connection, these technologies are controlled by a reactionary ruling class of financial elite and billionaires, and they are increasingly wielded to perpetuate disinformation, fragment history and manipulate public discourse. The authoritarian algorithms that drive these platforms increasingly prioritize sensationalism over substance, lies over truth, the appropriation of power over social responsibility, and in doing so, reinforce modes of civic illiteracy, while attacking those fundamental institutions which enable critical perspectives and a culture of questioning.

The vital need for collective action and intellectual engagement to reclaim and restore historical truth, critical thinking and social responsibility is urgent. The present historical moment, both unprecedented and alarming, resonates with Antonio Gramsci’s reflection on an earlier era marked by the rise of fascism: “The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born; now is the time of monsters.”

In the face of a deepening crisis of history, memory and agency, any meaningful resistance must be collective, disruptive and unapologetically unsettling — challenging entrenched orthodoxies and dismantling the forces that perpetuate ignorance and injustice. This struggle needs to be both radical in its essence and uncompromising in its demands for social change, recognizing education as inseparable from politics and the tangible challenges people face in their everyday lives. In this collective effort lies the power to dismantle the barriers to truth, rebuild the foundations of critical thought, and shape a future rooted in knowledge, justice and a profound commitment to make power accountable. Central to this vision is the capacity to learn from history, to nurture a historical consciousness that informs our present and to reimagine agency as an essential force in the enduring struggle for democracy. This call for a radical imagination cannot be confined to classrooms but must emerge as a transformative force embedded in a united, multiracial, working-class movement. Only then can we confront the urgent crises of our time.

We’re resisting Trump’s authoritarian pressure.

As the Trump administration moves a mile-a-minute to implement right-wing policies and sow confusion, reliable news is an absolute must.

Truthout is working diligently to combat the fear and chaos that pervades the political moment. We’re requesting your support at this moment because we need it – your monthly gift allows us to publish uncensored, nonprofit news that speaks with clarity and truth in a moment when confusion and misinformation are rampant. As well, we’re looking with hope at the material action community activists are taking. We’re uplifting mutual aid projects, the life-sustaining work of immigrant and labor organizers, and other shows of solidarity that resist the authoritarian pressure of the Trump administration.

As we work to dispel the atmosphere of political despair, we ask that you contribute to our journalism. Over 80 percent of Truthout’s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors.

8 days remain in our fundraiser, and you can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.

This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license. 

Henry A. Giroux

Henry A. Giroux currently holds the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and is the Paulo Freire Distinguished Scholar in Critical Pedagogy. His most recent books include: The Terror of the Unforeseen (Los Angeles Review of books, 2019), On Critical Pedagogy, 2nd edition (Bloomsbury, 2020); Race, Politics, and Pandemic Pedagogy: Education in a Time of Crisis (Bloomsbury 2021); Pedagogy of Resistance: Against Manufactured Ignorance (Bloomsbury 2022) and Insurrections: Education in the Age of Counter-Revolutionary Politics (Bloomsbury, 2023), and coauthored with Anthony DiMaggio, Fascism on Trial: Education and the Possibility of Democracy (Bloomsbury, 2025). Giroux is also a member of Truthout’s board of directors.

Blackboard Jungle 2025: How US Schools Failed and Why It Matters

In 2025 the state of American education is more precarious than ever. Many public schools, especially those in underfunded urban and rural areas, are failing their students. The term "failing schools" is often thrown around in political debates, but what does it actually mean? And how did we get here?

The Markers of Failure
Failing schools are characterized by a combination of low test scores, declining graduation rates, poor teacher retention, crumbling infrastructure, and high student absenteeism. These institutions often serve marginalized communities where poverty, crime, and systemic neglect create an uphill battle for education.

The Road to Failure
The crisis in education did not happen overnight. It is the result of decades of misguided policies, economic shifts, and societal neglect. Below are some of the key factors that have contributed to the decline of many schools:

Chronic Underfunding
Public schools rely heavily on local property taxes for funding, which means that schools in wealthy areas flourish while those in impoverished communities struggle to provide basic resources. 

Schools in affluent neighborhoods have modern facilities and abundant resources, while schools serving working class students operate in substandard conditions. 

Attempts to "reform" through privatization and the push for charter schools have only exacerbated the problem. Instead of addressing root causes, these reforms often drain public schools of resources, leaving them even more vulnerable.

The Era of Standardized Testing

Since the early 2000s, the focus on standardized testing has led to a "teach to the test" culture that stifles creativity, critical thinking, and real learning. Schools that fail to meet test score benchmarks face punitive measures rather than meaningful support.

Teacher Burnout and Shortages
Low salaries, lack of respect, increasing workloads, and political interference have driven many talented educators out of the profession. The teacher pipeline is drying up, leaving many schools with underqualified or temporary staff. 

Educators are often forced to contend with not only limited resources but also overwhelming emotional and physical demands that contribute to burnout. The constant critique of teachers and their work environment, compounded by insufficient support, drives educators out of the profession, leaving students without the consistent mentorship they need.

Privatization and Charter Expansion
The rise of charter schools and school voucher programs has siphoned funds from public schools, leaving them with fewer resources to educate the most vulnerable students, including those with disabilities and language barriers. 

The push for privatization is a form of "corporate education reform" that undermines public schooling. Rather than addressing root causes, these reforms often divert funds to entities more interested in profit than equity. Charter schools in some cases have exacerbated the inequalities they were meant to address.

Social and Economic Inequality
The challenges students face at home—such as food insecurity, lack of healthcare, and unstable housing—spill into the classroom. Schools cannot solve these problems alone, yet they are often expected to compensate for systemic failures in social services. 

Historical inequalities—rooted in race, class, and gender—have been perpetuated through institutions like education, often leaving marginalized communities at a disadvantage. The lack of support for students in poverty is not a new phenomenon but part of a long history of structural neglect.

Immigration                                                                                                                                Immigration brings both opportunities and challenges to different socioeconomic areas. In affluent neighborhoods, immigrants often contribute to cultural diversity, stimulate local economies, and fill highly skilled labor gaps, which enhances the overall prosperity of these communities. 

In working-class neighborhoods, the influx of immigrants can strain resources and services, leading to heightened competition for low-wage jobs and potential wage suppression. While some may thrive, others may experience economic hardship and decreased access to affordable housing and healthcare, creating disparities within these communities.

Violence and Safety Concerns
Mass shootings, gang violence, and bullying have made many schools unsafe. Metal detectors and police presence have not necessarily improved learning conditions, and in some cases, they have exacerbated tensions between students and faculty. 

Larger social forces at play include the militarization of society and its impact on the way schools are policed and students are treated. The criminalization of students, particularly students of color, has led to an environment where educational spaces are seen as places of fear rather than learning.

Why This Matters
Failing schools do not just affect individual students; they have profound implications for the workforce, the economy, and democracy itself. Poor education leads to lower earning potential, increased crime rates, and a disengaged electorate. 

If we continue to neglect our schools, we risk deepening inequality and weakening the fabric of our society. The consequences of educational inequity are far-reaching, affecting not only the students directly impacted but also the future of communities, economies, and the nation as a whole.

This is a broader reflection of a society where the interests of the wealthy are prioritized over the needs of the marginalized, reinforcing cycles of poverty and injustice. If educational opportunities remain unequal, democracy itself is at risk, as people from underprivileged backgrounds are denied the tools to engage critically with society and its political structures.

What Other Nations Are Doing: Lessons from Abroad                                                                      While the United States of America struggles with these deep-rooted issues, other nations have found ways to achieve better outcomes in education by focusing on equality, teacher support, and broadening the definition of success beyond standardized testing.

Finland: A Model of Equity and Teacher Respect
Finland has long been held up as a model of educational excellence. One of its core principles is equality. Finnish schools ensure that all students, regardless of background, have access to high-quality education. Teachers in Finland are highly trained (requiring a master’s degree), well-compensated, and respected as professionals. Unlike the U.S., Finland has largely avoided the pitfalls of standardized testing, focusing instead on a holistic approach to education that values critical thinking, creativity, and individual growth. This model shows that when teachers are supported and empowered, students thrive.

South Korea: Education as a National Priority
South Korea places a high cultural value on education, with rigorous academic standards and a highly motivated student body. However, unlike the U.S., the country provides significant government investment in education, ensuring that public schools are well-funded and that there are resources available to support students. In addition, after-school programs and tutoring are common, helping to bridge gaps for students who may need extra assistance. This holistic approach to supporting students, both inside and outside of school, contrasts sharply with the U.S. approach of leaving many schools to fend for themselves without sufficient resources.

Japan: Focus on Social Emotional Learning and Collaborative Learning
Japan’s education system is grounded in social emotional learning, emphasizing respect, discipline, and collaboration over competition. Schools focus not only on academic achievement but also on developing students’ interpersonal and social skills. Teachers work closely with students to create a supportive learning environment where collaboration is prioritized. This focus on emotional and social development creates a more balanced and well-rounded educational experience. In the U.S., social emotional learning is often sidelined in favor of academics and test scores, but Japan’s success shows that nurturing the whole child leads to better outcomes overall.

Canada: Supportive Communities and Inclusivity
Canada’s approach to education is centered on inclusivity, ensuring that marginalized groups—whether they be Indigenous communities, newcomers, or children with disabilities—receive the support they need to succeed. The Canadian model places a heavy emphasis on community involvement in schools, and local governments play a key role in ensuring that educational programs are tailored to meet the unique needs of their populations. This inclusive, community-driven approach contrasts with the U.S. focus on market-driven reforms and privatization, showing that investing in public education for all students pays off in the long run.

The Way Forward                                                                                                                        Reversing this trend requires a fundamental shift in priorities, which are unlikely to happen in the near term in the United States of America.  But it could happen in individual states that value justice and fairness and are willing to lead. 

Policymakers must commit to fully funding public education, reforming assessment methods, supporting teachers, and addressing social inequalities that impact learning. Communities must also demand accountability from leaders and support initiatives that uplift students rather than punish them for systemic failures.

Looking beyond our borders, Finland, South Korea, Japan, and Canada offer valuable lessons on how to create equitable, supportive, and high-performing educational systems. These countries demonstrate that with the right priorities—such as teacher respect, equality of opportunity, community involvement, and a broader definition of success—educational systems can overcome even the deepest challenges.

Higher Education Inquirer: Increasingly Relevant

The Higher Education Inquirer continues to grow.  Last month the number of views rose to more than 45,000.  And our total number of views has increased to more than 440,000. While we had added advertisements, we have not received any SEO help, and we do not pay Google for ads. 

We believe our growth stems largely from our increasing relevance and in our truth telling, which other higher education news outlets are unwilling to do in these times.

Our devotion to transparency, accountability, and value for our readers guides us. 

We invite a diverse group of guest authors who are willing to share their truths. The list includes academics from various disciplines, advocates, activists, journalists, consultants, and whistleblowers. We back up all of this work with data and critical analysis, irrespective of politics and social conventions. We are willing to challenge the higher education establishment, including trustees, donors, and university presidents.

Our articles covering student loan debt, academic labor, nonviolent methods of protest, and freedom of speech are unparalleled. And we are unafraid about including other issues that matter to our readers, including stories and videos about mental health, student safety, technology (such as artificial intelligence), academic cheating, and the nature of work.  And matters of war, peace, democracy, and climate change. 

Our focus, though mainly on US higher education, also has an international appeal. 

Some of our work takes years to produce, through careful documentation of primary and secondary sources, database analysis, and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. We share all of this information for everyone to see at no cost.  

Of course, we could not operate without all your voices. We welcome all your voices. Something few other sources are willing to do.    

The future of the US Department of Education: 8 tips for journalists covering the agency under Trump’s second term

by Denise-Marie Ordway, The Journalist's Resource
January 23, 2025

The U.S. Department of Education, one of the federal government’s smallest Cabinet-level agencies, operates programs across every level of education. With an annual budget of about $242 billion, it helps fund approximately 98,000 public schools and 32,000 private schools serving kindergarten through grade 12 as well as thousands of colleges, universities, vocational schools and other higher education institutions.

During his reelection campaign, President Donald Trump pledged to close the U.S. Department of Education if he returned to the White House. In the months leading to his inauguration on Monday, some Republican state leaders and members of Congress expressed support for his proposal, although it is still unclear how he would implement it.

In Oklahoma, for example, Ryan Walters, the state superintendent of public instruction, has formed a committee to oversee the changes in federal education policy he expects the Trump administration to make.

“The education system has needed these reforms for decades,” Walters told FOX23 News Tulsa in November. “We’re going to be the first state ready to go to enact them.”

Even if the federal Education Department remains intact, which academic researchers and other experts assert is most likely, there probably will be changes. Trump has said he plans to use federal funding as leverage to limit what he considers “left-wing indoctrination” in K-12 schools and higher education institutions.

He has made it clear that he opposes so called “diversity programs” as well as school vaccine requirements, teaching critical race theory in K-12 classrooms and allowing transgender students to participate in sports that align with their gender identity.

“The big question isn’t whether the Department of Education is going to go away -- I think the big question is what it’s going to do,” says education historian Jonathan Zimmerman, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who wrote the books Whose America? Culture Wars in the Public Schools and The Amateur Hour: A History of College Teaching in America.

We created this tip sheet to help journalists tackle this very complicated issue. Below, we spotlight eight tips to help you better understand the Education Department’s role, put Trump’s plan into historical context, and examine possible consequences for students, families, educators and their communities.

1. Make clear what the U.S. Department of Education does and that most of its funding is spent on programs for adults.

Many people don’t realize the U.S. Department of Education spends most of its budget on education and training for adults, namely college students, students enrolled in career and technical programs, and people with disabilities who need help finding jobs. In fiscal year 2024, the Education Department spent about $161 billion -- 60% of its $268 billion budget -- to fund its office of Federal Student Aid, the country’s largest provider of student financial aid.

Another $2 billion went to the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, which administers a variety of education and training programs for adults, including adults with disabilities and incarcerated individuals. About $4 billion went to the Office of Postsecondary Education, which, among other things, provides grants for colleges controlled by tribal governments and for other minority serving institutions. The Rutgers Center for Minority Serving Institutions maintains a list of MSIs, which are public and private colleges and universities that serve a large percentage of Black, Hispanic, Asian or Indigenous students.

K-12 public schools receive relatively little money from the U.S. Department of Education. In fact, less than 8% of public school revenue came from federal agencies, including the Education Department, before COVID-19 reached the U.S. in 2020. Since then, the federal government has sent schools a combined $189.5 billion in emergency aid to help them deal with the wide-ranging impacts of the pandemic.

This temporary infusion of money bumped the federal government's share of public school funding to 13.7% during the 2021-22 academic year, the most recent year for which data is available.

The U.S. Department of Education’s largest K-12 programs are grant programs, designed to help public schools afford the higher cost of educating certain groups of students. For example, special education grants help schools pay for education and services for students with disabilities until they turn 21 years old. The Title I program, which gets its name from Title I of the federal law known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, provides financial assistance to schools where at least 40% students come from lower-income families.

A key function of the U.S. Department of Education is investigating civil rights complaints at K-12 schools, colleges, universities, trade schools and the other institutions it funds. Meanwhile, the agency’s research arm, the Institute of Education Sciences, collects a variety of education data and publishes regular reports on topics such as K-12 student demographics, high school graduation rates, college costs and college enrollment trends.

2. Note that some federal education programs are funded by other government agencies.

Much of the public probably does not realize that several major education programs are not run by the U.S. Department of Education. For example:

• Head Start, which provides education-related services to preschool children from low-income families, is funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
• The National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program are funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
• While the Education Department provides some funding for K-12 schools controlled by tribal governments, most comes from the Bureau of Indian Education, part of the U.S. Department of the Interior. Some K-12 schools located on tribal land are operated and funded by the Bureau of Indian Education, which also funds and operates two tribal higher education institutions: the Haskell Indian Nations University in Kansas and the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute in New Mexico.
• The GI Bill, which helps military veterans and their family members pay for college and other types of education, is funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
• The primary federal agencies that provide research funding to colleges and universities are the National Science Foundation, Department of Defense, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Energy, National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Department of Agriculture.

3. Emphasize that closing the U.S. Department of Education has been a goal of conservative politicians for decades.

Several high-ranking Republicans have sought to eliminate the Education Department since it opened in 1980 under Democratic President Jimmy Carter. Ronald Reagan, who won the presidential election that year, announced his plan to shutter it during his first State of the Union address.

“In campaigning for the presidency, Mr. Reagan called for the total elimination of the U.S. Department of Education, severe curtailment of bilingual education, and massive cutbacks in the federal role in education,” education historian Gary K. Clabaugh writes in “The Educational Legacy of Ronald Reagan,” published in the academic journal Educational Horizons in 2004.

Bob Dole, the Republican presidential nominee in 1996, also advocated for closure, as did Trump and several other Republicans competing for the U.S. presidency in 2024. Former Vice President Mike Pence, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum and biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy have all said they would eliminate the Education Department.

Shortly after Trump’s reelection in November, U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds, a Republican from South Dakota, introduced the “Returning Education to Our States Act.” The bill seeks to abolish the Department of Education and transfer its programs and responsibilities to other federal agencies. For example, the Department of the Treasury would take over federal financial aid programs and the Department of Health and Human Services would administer the special education program.

U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, introduced bills in 2017, 2019, 2021 and 2023 to either terminate or reduce the size of the Education Department.

4. Explain what it would take to close the U.S. Department of Education. 

Closing the Education Department would require federal legislation and, likely, a supermajority vote in the U.S. Senate. Although senators can pass bills with a simple majority vote, it takes a supermajority vote to halt discussion on a bill so a vote can take place.

That means that unless the Senate eliminates its filibuster rule, which often has been used to block controversial legislation, three-fifths of senators would have to vote in favor of closing the debate on such a bill to allow a vote. Political observers have said they doubt 60 of the 100 senators would vote in favor of that. Only 53 are Republicans.

Less than two years ago, the U.S. House of Representatives considered a legislative amendment that endorsed moving K-12 education programs out of the Department of Education. It failed, with 60 Republicans and 205 Democrats voting against it.

The Education Department generally enjoys bipartisan support, Pedro Noguera, dean of the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California, explained recently on a podcast he co-hosts and in an essay he co-wrote for The Hill.

“There are a lot of red states, red communities across the country that benefit from the policies and the programs,” Noguera said on the “Sparking Equity” podcast.

Education scholar Frederick Hess supports closing the department but says it will not happen. Not only do Republicans lack the votes to make the change, they have shown little interest in cutting programs that serve lower-income kids and kids with disabilities, says Hess, an executive editor of the Education Next journal, which, like The Journalist's Resource, is housed at Harvard Kennedy School.

Hess is also director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, and the author of several books on education policy, including "Getting Education Right: A Conservative Vision for Improving Early Childhood, K–12, and College" and "The Great School Rethink."

"What really matters for people who want to shrink the federal role or change it is: What are we changing about spending and rules and regulations?" he says, adding that journalists need to examine how the current rules for spending federal education dollars harm K-12 students. For one, he notes, they create a lot of paperwork for teachers at a time when public schools are struggling to hire and retain teachers, particularly special education teachers.

Says Hess: "There's a real opportunity here to look at the role of federal aid and the use of federal funds -- how are they used and are they actually creating budgetary problems rather than solving them?"

5. Provide your audiences with a realistic sense of how K-12 and higher education could be affected by an Education Department closure.

Educators, school administrators, policymakers and academic researchers have all speculated on how an Education Department closure could impact federal education funding and programs. Ten journalists from the Hechinger Report, a nonprofit news outlet that focuses on education issues, teamed up recently to examine that question. The resulting article is a must-read for journalists covering this topic.

Among its main takeaways: Abolishing the agency would not undo federal laws that established federal funding for K-12 programs that serve some of the nation’s most marginalized students, including students with disabilities and those from lower-income families. “But doling out that money and overseeing it could get messy,” the outlet reports.

Marguerite Roza, a research professor who studies education finances at Georgetown University, has said funding for K-12 schools probably would not change much.

“We've been telling school districts, ‘Don't expect massive changes in your federal dollars,’” Roza, who directs Georgetown’s Edunomics Lab, said in a Dec. 12 interview on a podcast produced by the right-leaning Defense of Freedom Institute for Policy Studies.

Meanwhile, higher education scholars like Marybeth Gasman, the Samuel DeWitt Proctor Endowed Chair in Education at Rutgers University, are concerned about college funding. She’s especially worried about funding aimed at helping marginalized youth get to and through college. Trump and some other conservative lawmakers have expressed disdain for so-called “diversity programs.”

A drop in funding could be devastating for minority serving institutions, which serve close to half of all U.S. college students who are racial or ethnic minorities, says Gasman, who is also executive director of both the Rutgers Center for Minority Serving Institutions and the Samuel DeWitt Proctor Institute for Leadership, Equity & Justice. 

For example, 25% of Historically Black Colleges and Universities’ revenue came from the federal Education Department in fiscal year 2022, according to a report released last month by the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association. At the same time, most students enrolled at HBCUs qualify for Pell grants, a type of financial aid the Education Department offers lower-income students that they do not pay back.

Most minority serving institutions, commonly referred to as MSIs, are designated as Hispanic serving institutions because a large percentage of their students are Hispanic. They get 18% of their revenue directly from the Education Department grants. Many of their students also qualify for Pell grants.

“There needs to be more exploration into the ramifications of Trump’s presidency on MSIs,” Gasman says. “If they change loan forgiveness [policies], if they change Pell [grants], if they change aid to MSIs, it will have profound impacts.”

6. Evaluate how well the U.S. Department of Education runs its programs.

When President Jimmy Carter signed the Department of Education Organization Act, which created the Education Department, he said he wanted to ensure Americans got a better return on their investment in education. He said the new department would, among other things, save tax dollars and make federal education programs more accountable and responsive.

Has the department accomplished those goals? That’s a question journalists should try to answer for their audiences. Here are resources to get you started:

• Investigative reports from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, often referred to as Congress’ watchdog. The office examines the use of public funds and makes recommendations for improvement.
• Performance Results Reports and Congressional Reports compiled by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General. The purpose of that office is to “promote the efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity of the Department’s programs and operations through independent and objective audits, investigations, inspections, and other activities.”
• The National Center for Education Statistics provides an assortment of data on various K-12 student groups, including students who participate in Title I, special education and English language acquisition programs. It also provides data on students who participate in federal higher education programs, including the graduation rates of lower-income college students who receive Pell grants, one type of federal financial aid.
• The Congressional Research Service, which assists Congress in researching issues and creating laws and policies, regularly releases reports focusing on Education Department programs.
• Researchers have studied the effectiveness of the Title I program specifically, although no academic articles have been published in recent years. An analysis from George Mason University’s School of Policy, Government and International Affairs, updated in 2015, looks at the results of national assessments of the Title I program conducted from 1966 to 2013. It finds “little evidence that Title I has contributed significantly to closing achievement gaps nationwide.” A 2015 analysis by the Brookings Institution, a centrist think tank, asserts that the Title I program “doesn’t work,” in part because Title 1 “is spread so thin that its budget of $14 billion a year turns out not to be much money.”
• Some school districts have hired the American Institutes for Research to review their special education programs. A handful of recent reviews are posted on the organization’s website, and others could be obtained directly from school districts through public records requests.
• Several academic journal articles examine the burden of paperwork associated with federal K-12 education programs. In a paper published in 2023, for example, researchers write that “excessive paperwork” is a main reason special education teachers leave the field.
• A June 2024 analysis from EdSource, a nonprofit news outlet in California, finds that students who are learning to speak English do worse on California’s state exam the longer they are enrolled in the federal English language acquisition program.
• Many news outlets have reported on the Education Department’s botched rollout of the new FAFSA -- the Free Application for Federal Student Aid -- that students must submit to determine their eligibility for college grants and loans.

7. Find out whether state Education Departments are prepared to take on additional duties if the U.S. Department of Education closes.

Trump and many other influential Republicans want states to oversee their own education programs. But it is unclear which responsibilities would be transferred from the federal Education Department and how changes would be rolled out. What also is unclear is whether individual states are ready and able to take on these new duties.

It’s well known that state and local governments struggled with staffing during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in law enforcement, public health and education. Hiring has picked up recently, but some human resource managers have reported an uptick in resignations and retirements, according to a 2024 analysis conducted on behalf of the National Association of State Personnel Executives and the Public Sector HR Association. Some of the hiring officials surveyed for that report also said they expect a major wave of retirements during the next few years.

Veteran education journalist Daarel Burnette recommends journalists visit state Education Departments and look into how well they are handling their current workloads.

“You can just walk into those buildings and see rows and rows of empty desks -- they look like newsrooms,” says Burnette, a senior editor at The Chronicle of Higher Education and a former assistant managing editor and reporter for Education Week.

He notes that state education officials have been widely criticized for their response to the pandemic and the decline of K-12 students’ test scores in the wake of it. Individual legislators and the American Civil Liberties Union have requested investigations into the alleged misuse of schools’ COVID-19 relief funds.

The federal Education Department’s Office of the Inspector General has released several reports investigating individual state’s use of those funds. In December 2024, a subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives released a 557-page report examining the nation’s response to the pandemic, indicating that “[t]he unprecedented scale and lack of transparency in COVID-19 pandemic relief programs exposed vulnerabilities for waste, fraud, and abuse.”

8. Ask education experts about angles and issues you have not yet considered.

Even if the Education Department is not dismantled, close federal scrutiny could easily open the door for other conversations about funding cuts and changes to the agency’s programs and procedures. Journalists should ask education researchers and other experts for help identifying issues the public needs to know about.

Laura Enriquez, director of the University of California Collaborative to Promote Immigrant and Student Equity, urges journalists to look beyond their regular sources and ask about students the news media tend to overlook. For example, while journalists frequently report on how public policies affect unauthorized immigrants, their coverage does not often include children born in the U.S. to parents who are unauthorized immigrants, she says.

These individuals can face challenges accessing programs and services that government agencies provide to U.S. citizens. Last year, these students had trouble submitting their FAFSA forms to obtain financial aid for college if their parents did not have social security numbers, says Enriquez, who is also an associate professor of Chicano/Latino studies and director of the Center for Liberation, Anti-racism, and Belonging at the University of California, Irvine. 

“There are so many ways to tinker with aid award formulas and make the process more complicated than it already is for first-generation college students, racial minorities and citizens with undocumented parents,” she says.

She urges journalists to routinely ask themselves who is missing from their coverage. She adds: “The question you need to ask of yourself as a reporter is ‘Who else could be impacted through social ties?’ That’s a guiding question I wish more reporters asked of themselves.”

This article first appeared on The Journalist's Resource and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Exposing Duchateau: A Shocking Case of Academic Misconduct at Universite Libre de Bruxelles (Emmanuel Legeard)

A Flagrant and Repeated Breach of Academic Ethics (Université Libre de Bruxelles and European Journal of Applied Physiology)

For several years now, Jacques Duchâteau and his team at the Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) have sought to misappropriate the 3/7 Method, a strength-training protocol I independently developed more than 20 years ago. Jean-Pierre Egger revealed the method — while respecting its intellectual property — during seminars and university lectures in 2012. Regardless of this elementary fact, ULB’s claims are contradicted by ample evidence proving my authorship, such as correspondence with Egger dating back to 2008, his documented public presentation at the University of Lausanne in 2012 within the ISSUL Master’s program, and Duchâteau’s recorded presentations at the French National Institute of Sport (INSEP).

THE 3/7 METHOD, ALSO KNOWN AS THE LEGEARD PROTOCOL (Presented by Jean-Pierre Egger at the University of Lausanne in 2012)

(You can download the full .pdf here: (PDF) Emmanuel Legeard Le 3–7 Master en sciences du sport, Université de Lausanne)

Initially, Jacques Duchâteau organized conferences about me — curiously, without my involvement or consent — where the 3/7 Method was even referred to as “Legeard’s Method”. Gradually, Duchâteau resorted to insinuating that the method might not solely be my creation, a claim he knew was false. My method has never been modified by anyone. At the time, I dismissed these rumors as baseless. However, it became clear that this was a calculated strategy to dilute my rights and claim ownership of my work.

2014: DUCHÂTEAU PRESENTS THE “LEGEARD’S METHOD” AT INSEP

Subsequently, Duchâteau’s team — including Séverine Stragier, Stéphane Baudry, and Alain Carpentier — published a 12-page article in the European Journal of Applied Physiology about my method. Shockingly, my name, Emmanuel Legeard, WAS ENTIRELY OMITTED ! This publication, titled “Efficacy of a new strength training design: the 3/7 method”, audaciously describes the method as “new”, a blatant misrepresentation given its development over two decades ago and its public introduction in 2012 by Egger.

European Journal of Applied Physiology’s predatory publishing — Predatory publishing, also write-only publishing or deceptive publishing, is an exploitative academic publishing business model, where the journal or publisher prioritizes self-interest at the expense of scholarship. It is characterized by misleading information, deviates from the standard peer-review process, and is highly opaque.

The misrepresentation has not gone unnoticed. T.C. Luoma, a renowned American sports journalist and editor of T-Nation — a site with over three million monthly visitors — highlighted the issue, stating:

“That’s why reading about the 3/7 method aroused my interest. It’s a set-rep scheme developed by French strength coach Emmanuel Legeard in the early 2000s.”

(Source: T-Nation Forums)

2023: THE DUCHÂTEAU TEAM’S UNABASHED IDEA THEFT

Last year, Grigoraș Diaconescu, an international rugby player, shared his outrage after discovering a post by Gaël Deboeck, identified as the head of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation at ULB. Deboeck congratulated Alexis Gillet, a doctoral student, for using the 3/7 Method to “prove” what I demonstrated 20 years ago. Unsurprisingly, the publication made no mention of the method’s original creator. It is now evident that ULB intends to mislead the public into believing that their laboratory developed the 3/7 Method. These unethical actions demand accountability.

2023: THE DUCHÂTEAU TEAM’S UNABASHED IDEA THEFT

CONSEQUENCES OF THIS ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT

If the Université Libre de Bruxelles believes I will quietly accept the theft of my work, they are mistaken. This scandal, indicative of dishonesty incompatible with academic integrity, must result in sanctions. Public funding cannot continue to support crooked research where my work is falsely attributed to impostors like Jacques Duchâteau, Séverine Stragier, Stéphane Baudry, Alain Carpentier, Gael Deboeck or Alexis Gillet. I have been lenient for years, but my patience as the rightful creator has reached its limit. I have begun publicly correcting this falsehood online, as seen in similar cases — such as one involving the University of Zurich — which have led to severe consequences for academic dishonesty.

Dr Emmanuel Legeard, Ph.D. — Creator, among quite a few others, of the 3/7 Method, also known as the “Legeard Method”.

This article originally appeared on Medium.