Neoliberal Elites Win One Against Trump — And Now, Labor Is Under Siege

In a dramatic policy shift that took just hours, the Trump administration reversed its position on reciprocal tariffs, caving to pressure from corporate America. In an unexpected retreat, President Donald Trump, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and Trade Advisor Peter Navarro reversed course on their “non-negotiable” tariffs, opting for a 90-day pause after facing a chorus of condemnation from CEOs and Wall Street titans. Despite the administration’s spin on the decision as a “win,” the retreat highlighted the deep sway that neoliberal elites hold over U.S. economic policy, even when faced with populist rhetoric.

While the immediate concern was the stock market plunge—$6.5 trillion lost in just two days—the larger narrative was the growing influence of corporate America in shaping trade policy. Business leaders from Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan to Larry Fink of BlackRock spoke out against the tariffs, urging the President to change course. In an organized show of power, corporate CEOs, including those from tech giants like Tesla and Ford, sided with the broader economic establishment over the administration’s protectionist policies.

However, what is not often discussed in these corporate circles is the broader attack on workers' rights and labor organizing taking place across the country—particularly in higher education, where private universities are increasingly using the courts and political arguments to undermine labor organizing efforts.

In a striking example of this trend, the University of Southern California (USC) has launched a direct challenge to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), an independent federal agency that has long protected workers’ rights to organize and bargain collectively. The university is attempting to block a unionization effort by its non-tenure-track faculty members, echoing the anti-union rhetoric pushed by corporations like SpaceX, Amazon, and Trader Joe’s, which have previously argued that the NLRB is unconstitutional.

In December, over 2,500 non-tenure-track faculty members at USC filed a petition to form a union with the United Faculty-United Auto Workers (UFW-UAW). This move came after a majority of faculty members expressed support for unionization. But ten days after the petition was filed, USC took the unprecedented step of arguing that the NLRB itself is unconstitutional. This argument hinges on claims that the NLRB’s structure—specifically, its independence and the protection of its members from presidential dismissal—violates constitutional principles.

This tactic mirrors the legal arguments advanced by corporations like SpaceX, which in 2020 challenged the NLRB’s constitutionality in court, claiming that the board's authority to issue decisions in labor disputes violated the separation of powers. Amazon, too, has tried to undermine the NLRB’s authority, arguing that the board’s structure infringes upon its rights as an employer.

While corporate interests have long resisted unionization—fearing the erosion of their unchecked power—USC’s stance is particularly noteworthy because it highlights how elite institutions, even those within academia, are increasingly willing to side with corporate interests to suppress workers’ rights. The university’s argument that non-tenure-track faculty cannot unionize because they are “managers” or “supervisors” is a familiar refrain in the corporate world, where businesses often claim that certain employees lack the right to unionize due to their purported managerial roles. This is despite the fact that faculty members have little to no influence over university policy.

Jennifer Abruzzo, former general counsel for the NLRB, emphasized that the university could voluntarily recognize the faculty union without needing to rely on the NLRB’s authority. She argued that USC’s challenge is a direct attempt to subvert workers' rights to organize, asserting, “Whether the NLRB is unconstitutional or not does not preclude USC from recognizing and bargaining with their workers’ chosen representative.”

The significance of USC’s challenge extends beyond the university itself. If successful, this legal strategy could have wide-reaching implications for labor rights in the U.S. In a climate where conservative forces are already pushing to dismantle federal regulatory agencies, a ruling against the NLRB’s constitutionality could decimate the labor rights of nearly 170 million American workers.

For faculty members at USC, the stakes are personal and immediate. Sanjay Madhav, an associate professor and union activist at USC, pointed out that the push for unionization is especially critical as the university faces budget cuts and hiring freezes in response to financial uncertainty. Faculty members like Madhav are advocating for greater bargaining power, particularly around merit pay and benefits—issues that have become more pressing as the economic landscape becomes increasingly volatile.

Ironically, the pushback from USC against unionization underscores the very corporate mindset that has driven much of the resistance to Trump’s trade policies. Just as CEOs have leveraged their financial and political influence to halt tariffs that threatened their profits, private universities like USC are wielding legal arguments and political influence to protect their control over faculty and suppress the possibility of meaningful labor negotiations.

This broader context of corporate resistance to workers’ rights—both in trade policy and labor organizing—raises critical questions for higher education. It signals a growing trend where powerful interests are not only challenging the rights of workers but are also attempting to reframe the debate around collective bargaining and labor rights as unconstitutional or undesirable. This echoes a deeper, neoliberal agenda that seeks to hollow out democratic mechanisms of worker representation, whether in trade, the workplace, or the classroom.

As faculty at USC and other institutions wait to hear whether they will be allowed to proceed with their union election, the broader question remains: What happens when the very institutions that are meant to foster critical thinking and social mobility also align themselves with forces that seek to dismantle workers’ rights? And what does it mean for the future of labor and democracy when both corporate America and elite universities are so aggressively working to undermine the rights of those who power their institutions?

---

Francisco Tapia Salinas: The Artist Who Set Chile’s Student Debt Ablaze

Born in 1983 in the southern neighborhoods of Santiago, Chile, Francisco Tapia Salinas—better known as Papas Fritas—emerged as an influential figure in contemporary art despite having limited formal training. Tapia’s unconventional path led him to become an internationally recognized artist, but it was his provocative 2014 performance piece, Ad Augusta per Augusta ("To the Elevated by the Difficult"), that catapulted him to fame and solidified his place in the global art scene.

The title of the work was a direct reference to the motto of the now-defunct University del Mar, a private institution that had been shut down by Chile’s Ministry of Education. As the university’s closure left hundreds of students with substantial debt but no degree, Tapia was moved to take action. In an audacious statement of solidarity, he planned to "destroy the promissory notes and IOUs" that had burdened these students, who were trapped by years of financial obligations despite not completing their education.

On the day of the performance, Papas Fritas and a group of students seized the campus and stole documents worth over 500 million Chilean pesos (roughly equivalent to millions of dollars in student debt). The artist then set the documents on fire, offering the ashes as a powerful visual symbol of resistance and a rejection of the deeply privatized educational system. Tapia’s act of defiance was followed by his self-reporting to the authorities.

In a poignant five-minute video shared widely, Tapia declared, “It’s over, it’s finished. You don’t have to pay another peso of your student loan debt. We have to lose our fear, our fear of being thought of as criminals because we’re poor. I am just like you, living a shitty life, and I live it day by day — this is my act of love for you.” His words resonated deeply, especially among the university’s students, who were legally able to disavow their debts as a result of his intervention.

The minimal legal consequences Tapia faced in light of local legislation underscored the paradox of a system that prioritizes privatization over the well-being of its citizens. His artistic intervention, which boldly confronted both the educational establishment and Chile’s deeply entrenched financial inequities, has since been hailed as an iconic piece of contemporary Chilean art.

Ad Augusta per Augusta remains a testament to Tapia’s unflinching commitment to social justice, and his work continues to provoke discussions on the intersection of art, activism, and the privatization of education in Latin America.

Hardship Ahead

As we stand on the precipice of a turbulent future, one thing has become clear: the hardships ahead will disproportionately affect the working class, and the elites — across political, corporate, media, and intellectual spheres — have shown a consistent, and often intentional, indifference to their struggles. While many of us brace for economic downturns, climate chaos, and the seismic shifts brought on by technological advancements, the reality is that the ruling class has actively shaped a system where the burdens of these challenges will fall on the backs of ordinary people, all while they remain largely insulated from the consequences. The rise of authoritarian figures like President Donald Trump may dominate the headlines, but it’s not just about him; it’s about a broader systemic issue where elites, regardless of their political affiliation, have consistently prioritized their own interests over the well-being of those beneath them.

The Political Elites: A System Built to Serve the Powerful

It’s easy to point to figures like Donald Trump as the embodiment of elite disregard for the working class, but that misses the bigger picture. Trump was not a rogue element in the American political landscape, but rather the latest manifestation of a system that has long been rigged to benefit the wealthy. His administration, while promising to fight for the forgotten American worker, ultimately enacted policies that only deepened the wealth divide. Corporate tax cuts, deregulation, and a lack of meaningful action to address the hollowing out of American industries — these were the actions of a leader who claimed to represent the working class, but ultimately sided with the elite.

But Trump’s actions were not unique. The bipartisan neglect of the working class by both Republican and Democratic elites has been a long-standing feature of U.S. politics. Under both parties, trade deals like NAFTA, the deregulation of industries, the decline of unions, and the outsourcing of jobs were all policies that catered to corporate elites while leaving millions of working-class Americans in the dust. The promises of upward mobility, economic security, and better wages have been largely replaced with a system that offers crumbs to the working class while the wealthy continue to reap record profits. Political elites — whether through tax cuts for the rich or cuts to social programs — have shown an outright disregard for the struggles of everyday people.

This indifference is only magnified as we now face a growing economic crisis. The pandemic and economic shutdowns pushed the working class further into financial instability, and the challenges ahead — from potential recessions to an increasing reliance on automation — will continue to hit hardest those already on the brink. But the elites, whether corporate giants, politicians, or financial institutions, are poised to weather these storms with little more than an inconvenience to their wealth and power. Meanwhile, workers will be forced to bear the weight of an unstable economy, with wages stagnating and job insecurity rising.

Corporate Elites: Profits Over People, Even in the Face of Crisis

The corporate elite — the billionaires and multinational corporations who control the economy — have continued their indifference to the working class, exacerbating the hardships that lie ahead. As climate change accelerates and the global economy teeters on the brink, these corporations are more concerned with profits than with providing real solutions to the problems at hand. Instead of adapting to the growing demands for fair wages, secure jobs, and environmentally sustainable practices, many corporations are doubling down on exploiting their workers.

Take the tech industry, for example. Amazon, Google, and other tech giants are facing mounting scrutiny for their poor labor practices, such as low wages, harsh working conditions, and algorithmic surveillance of employees. Yet these companies — some of the richest in the world — are not shifting their priorities to address the inequities in their business models. Instead, they continue to exploit the labor of workers without offering them the protections and benefits they deserve. Meanwhile, the CEOs of these companies enjoy unimaginable wealth, completely detached from the daily struggles of those who actually power their success.

The financial sector, too, continues to perpetuate a system of inequality. The speculative bubbles in cryptocurrency, real estate, and stocks benefit the wealthy, while the working class is left with the fallout. When the next financial crisis inevitably hits — and it will — it will be the workers who lose their jobs, homes, and savings, while the banks and hedge funds are bailed out by the government. This pattern of privatizing gains and socializing losses has become a hallmark of elite indifference to the struggles of everyday Americans.

Media Elites: Crafting Narratives that Serve the Powerful

The media, which should serve as a check on power and a platform for the voices of the marginalized, has become yet another arm of the elite establishment. Corporate-controlled media outlets are more concerned with maintaining their profit margins and advertising revenue than with accurately reflecting the struggles of the working class. The growing divide in society — along lines of race, class, gender, and age — is often presented as an isolated issue, rather than a systemic failure that stems from decades of elite indifference and exploitation.

The media elites who control these narratives continue to push the idea of a meritocracy — the belief that success is the result of hard work and determination — despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. While working-class people struggle with rising rents, stagnant wages, and a lack of job security, media outlets cater to the wealthy and powerful, maintaining a status quo that ensures the perpetuation of inequality. The media’s failure to adequately address the systemic issues that have led to this growing divide — from the dismantling of the welfare state to the erosion of workers' rights — only deepens the alienation felt by ordinary citizens.

The Intellectual Elites: Detached from Reality

Even in academia and intellectual circles, the response to the challenges facing the working class is often one of detachment or indifference. While scholars and economists may craft theories about the future of work, automation, and global economic systems, few offer tangible, actionable solutions to help the millions of Americans who are already struggling. The intellectual elites — with their focus on abstract concepts and lofty ideals — have consistently failed to address the immediate needs of the working class.

For example, the rise of automation and artificial intelligence presents an existential threat to many workers in industries like manufacturing, retail, and transportation. While experts discuss the benefits of these technologies, few have addressed the real-world consequences for workers whose jobs are being automated away. The intellectual elites have, in many cases, failed to call for policies that would ensure a just transition for these workers, leaving them at the mercy of a system that values profit over people.

The Coming Hardships: Economic, Social, and Environmental Struggles

The coming years will bring significant hardships — both in terms of economic instability and environmental catastrophe. The working class will bear the brunt of these challenges, and yet, the elites seem more interested in protecting their wealth and power than in addressing the root causes of these crises. As automation continues to displace workers, and as the climate crisis leads to extreme weather events and resource scarcity, the working class will face mass unemployment, displacement, and economic insecurity. Yet, while working people are scrambling to adapt to these changes, the elites will continue to live in their gated communities, insulated from the storms of hardship that are ravaging the rest of society.

At the same time, geopolitical tensions — fueled in part by elite disregard for diplomacy and international cooperation — are pushing the world closer to conflict. The U.S. has increasingly aligned itself with authoritarian regimes and turned a blind eye to human rights abuses around the globe. The failure to address these global injustices, combined with a domestic political landscape increasingly divided by race, class, gender, and age, creates a volatile environment in which the working class will continue to suffer, while the elites profit off of the instability they have helped create.

Resistance and Reclamation of Power

Despite the indifference of the elites, resistance is growing. In the face of climate change, economic instability, and rising inequality, workers are beginning to organize — through strikes, protests, and boycotts — to demand better conditions, fair wages, and a more just society. This nonviolent resistance is not just a response to Trump’s policies but to a broader system that has long been stacked against the working class.

The time has come to recognize that the elites — whether in politics, business, or media — have consistently prioritized their own interests over the well-being of ordinary people. As the hardships ahead loom large, the working class must begin to reclaim power, not just through resistance but through the creation of a new system that values their labor, their dignity, and their humanity.

We cannot afford to wait for elites to solve these problems; the future depends on the collective action of those who have been sidelined for far too long. Only by organizing, building solidarity, and demanding a better future can we begin to address the systemic injustices that have plagued society for decades. The time for change is now, and the working class must rise to meet the challenges ahead — not just to survive, but to reclaim their rightful place in a just and equitable society.

Trump is Using Jews, Not Protecting Us (Hank Kalet, Channel Surfing)

His Executive Order on Antisemitism is a Threat to Muslims and Palestinians on Campuses and an Attack on the First Amendment

Antisemitism exists. It has a long and painful history that has embedded fear in our DNA as Jews, a fear that grows when incidents occur, like the one in Australia recently.

Police in New South Wales state, which includes Sydney, said on Wednesday they had found explosives in a caravan, or trailer, that could have created a blast wave of 40 metres (130 feet).

There was some indication the explosives might be used in an antisemitic attack that could have caused mass casualties, police said.

There also was an apparently coordinated set of “graffiti attacks” on Jewish sites that have caused the Australian Jewish community to increase security. Similar security efforts are being ramped up by Jewish groups in Europe as threats of antisemitic acts and the growth of the Far Right stoke fears.

Share

There have been reports of violent and deadly incidents throughout Europe, as well, with direct attacks on synagogues and other Jewish institutions. And there are leaders like Viktor Orhan in Hungary and political parties like Alternative for Germany who use antisemitic language and tropes, though often sanitized, amid their more targeted attacks on Muslim immigrants.

Syndicate or Reuse

Books by Hank Kalet

The United States is not immune to antisemitism, of course, but American Jews seem unable to focus on the real threats. Rather than keep our eyes trained on an ascendant right wing — including many of the people in President Donald Trump’s immediate circle, including the president himself — much of the Jewish community is focused on Israel and seems intent on conflating criticism of Israel, its war on Gaza, and the occupation with actual systemic anti-Jewish action.

This is the context for Wednesday’s executive order on “combatting antisemitism,” which targets campus protests and continues a Conservative/Republican push to peel Jews away from teh Democratic Party.

The order, as reported by The Washington Post, “is directed at universities where pro-Palestinian protests broke out last year,” and “threatens to revoke student visas of foreign students who participated in pro-Palestinian protests.”

Supporters of the order argue that these protests were antisemitic. They point to some uncomfortable speech — the equation of Israel with the Nazis, for instance — as proof, and then conflate sloganeering and assembly with physical harassment. Jewish students and faculty, the argument goes, were made uncomfortable by the protests and encampments and felt unsafe. That sense of fear, they say, proves that the protests were designed to harass, even if there was no direct harassment. It is a circular argument, but one endorsed by much of the American political establishment and leading Jewish organizations


Marc H. Ellis addresses the underlying issues with these arguments in his 2009 book Judaism Does Not Equal Israel.1 He describes what I’ll call a “triumphalist Judaism” that mixes Holocaust victimhood with Exodus (the novel) power, constructed in “the aftermath of the great Israeli triumph in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war” (6). That narrative posits several myths: that Palestine was empty and underutilized and had to be redeemed, that the “Arabs” were hostile to Jews as Jews, and that the state that was founded and that still exists remains a democratic outpost in a hostile world. This triumphalism, however, was also tied to our very real history as a persecuted minority. “Jews had once been weak and helpless,” he writes, but that was no longer the case. Yet, “our theology was telling us we were still. The fact was just the opposite. We had become empowered” and were acting as a regional power (59).

The current power dynamics in Israel/Palestine and the actual history — the forced removal of Palestinians from what is now the state and the continued usurpation of land — are treated as though they are benign acts. Israel — Jews — has become the victimizer in the region, acting as a colonial power, an occupying force.

What was “psychological,” he writes, has become “strategic.”

“If we owned up to our newfound power, we would have to be accountable for and to it. We would have to relinquish the Holocaust as the backdrop to everything Jewish.”

So Oct. 7 and the ensuing war play out as if they were new and shocking rather than as another battle — the deadliest and most traumatic, to be sure — in a decades-long rebellion by Palestinians against suppress and control by Israel.

The argument is based on an underlying anti-Muslim/anti-Arab bias that mirrors the hate and discrimination that Jews have faced across our history. It is evident in the language we (Americans and Jews) use consistently to refer to Arabs, Muslims, Palestine, and Israel. Arabs and Muslims continued to be seen as terrorists, even as the “not all” modifier is added.

Deena R. Hurwitz and Walther H. White Jr., in an article at the American Bar Association website, cite authors Sahar Aziz and John Esposito’s May 2024 book, Global Islamophobia and the Rise of Populism, to underscore a “disturbing rise of Islamophobia worldwide.”

Blaming Muslim minorities for economic, political, and social problems is an increasingly common rhetorical strategy for politicians in countries globally. A narrative of the “threatening Muslim invader” is prevalent, regardless of whether the targets of such rhetoric are born citizens or new arrivals.

Trump, for instance, mixes Islamophobic and xenophobic language as he calls for closing the borders. At the same time, he and his conservative allies rely on both anti- and philosemitic imagery when talking with and about Jews.

“In the United States, Europe, and India, Islamophobic rhetoric is essentially normalized,” Hurwitz and White write.

The use of this rhetoric reduces the history and diversity within the Muslim and Arab communities (and within the Jewish community) to “a set of stereotyped characteristics most often reducible to themes of violence, civilizational subversion, and fundamental otherness.”

Anti-Palestinian racism silences, excludes, erases, stereotypes, defames, and dehumanizes Palestinians. This is used to deny and justify violence against Palestinians and fails to acknowledge Palestinians as Indigenous people with a collective identity while erasing their human rights and equal dignity and worth.

Trump’s executive order builds on this structure of anti-Muslim/anti-Arab thought, while also endorsing stereotypes of Jews as a model minority in need of special protection — even as he dismantles what he calls the “DEI regime.” Pitting Jewish and Muslim communities against each other creates hierarchies among aggrieved groups, which the right can then use to abrogate our rights of speech, assembly, and petition. It’s also a solution that is out of proportion to the problem.

It creates a threat to international students (mostly Muslim) based purely on their protected speech and assembly, while doing nothing to improve the actual safety of Jewish students. Remember, we already have strong protections in most jurisdictions; prohibiting speech does nothing to address this.

Alex Morey of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a group that defends speech and academic freedom on campus and that has usually been allied with more conservative groups, describes what I’ll call an existential threat. She told the Forward that the order’s language might push universities to crack down on protest, because it functions as an implied threat — to funding and to visas.

Morey said that her organization was already fielding frantic queries from international students at American universities who are worried about being caught in a legal dragnet.

“These are not students that got arrested at a protest or vandalized a building, these are students who just went out and protested,” she said. “What we don’t want to see is schools saying, ‘Hey, Students for Justice in Palestine, I’m going to need a list of everyone in that club and we’re going to comb it for foreign students.’”

What we are talking about is the loss of immigration status and potential deportation as retribution for protest. It is a direct attack on the 14th Amendment’s equal rights clause, which provides “any person within (the United States) the equal protection of the laws,” including the First Amendment’s five basic freedoms.

The order brings together several of Trump’s favorite targets — higher education, Muslims, immigrants and protesters — and is part of a broader effort to undermine the academic freedom and speech rights of faculty and students in higher education. Trump is a wannabe autocrat. He sees these groups as a threat to his control. While fighting antisemitism is the ostensible reason for the order, the larger targets are our democratic institutions.

Channel Surfing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

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.    

TOMORROW: "Are Working Class Voters Done with Democrats?" (CUNY School of Labor and Urban Stidies)

 

Click here to view as webpage

Fri. January 31 - in-person only @CUNYSLU

Are Working Class Voters Done with Democrats? Class Dealignment & the Two Party System   Friday, January 31 1:30pm - 3:00pm Free and open to all.  Lunch will be served.    *In-person* only: CUNY School of Labor and Urban Studies 25 West 43rd Street, 18th floor, NYC 10036 (map)    REGISTER:  slucuny.swoogo.com/31January2025   Why did so many working-class voters support Republicans over Democrats in the 2024 elections?  Was the problem simply 'messaging', or have Democrats entrenched themselves as the party of corporate elites and Wall Street? What can Democrats do to win back this crucial demographic and how do we define (or re-define) the working-class?  Will Democrats make a strong commitment to economic populism to reverse this class dealignment? To delve into these questions join us for a conversation with Jared Abbott, director of the Center for Working Class Politics, and New Labor Forum Editor-at-Large Micah Uetricht.  This program is a live recording for SLU’s podcast Reinventing Solidarity.

Wed. February 5 - virtual via Zoom

What’s at Stake for Labor: Project 2025 and the Department of Government Efficiency      Wednesday, February 5 7:00pm - 8:30pm   Virtual event via Zoom webinar.    Register:   slucuny.swoogo.com/5February2025    Featured Speakers:  James Goodwin - Policy Director, Center for Progressive Reform Diana Reddy - Assistant Professor, UC Berkeley Law Arjun Singh - Senior Podcast Producer, The Lever Moderated by Samir Sonti - Assistant Professor, CUNY School of Labor and Urban Studies.   What are the real costs to bear on workers–especially civil service and public sector workers – with Project 2025 and the establishment of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency? What strategies can labor employ to counter this attack on working people and unions? How can looking back at previous far right policy projects help prepare us in our fight to protect workers? Join us to hear from law & policy experts and journalists as they discuss these urgent questions.

Questioning the Higher Education Establishment

"So that's how it is," sighed Yakov. "Behind the world lies another world." Bernard Malamud

The Higher Education Inquirer has published a number of articles about how US higher education works and the institutions, organizations, and individuals it serves. 

We have written about US higher education in a number of ways, discussing the history, economics, and underlying ideologies (e.g. neoliberalism, white supremacy) and theories making it what it is--an industry that reinforces a larger (and environmentally unsustainable) economic system and an industry that produces too many unneeded credentials--and soul crushing student loan debt. 

We have listed the myths that US higher education perpetuates and the methods it uses to disseminate them. We have examined a number of higher education institutions and their categories (including university hospitals, state universities, private colleges, community colleges, and online robocolleges). We have investigated several businesses associated with higher education, some nefarious, many profit driven, and a few (like TuitionFit and College Viability App) driven by integrity and values. And we have followed the struggle of labor and consumers. HEI has even created an outline for a People's History of US Higher Education.

But we haven't examined higher education as part of the establishment. Like the establishment that students of the 1960s talked about as something not to trust. The trustees, endowment managers, foundation presidents, accreditors, bankers, bond raters, CEOs and CFOs who make the decisions that affect how higher ed operates and who at the same time work to make consumers, workers, and activists invisible. 

To say we cannot trust US higher education administrators and business leaders may sound passe, or something that only extremists of the Left or Right might say, but it isn't, and more folks are seeing that. 

Examining US higher education needs to be assessed more deeply (like Craig Steven Wilder, Davarian Baldwin, and Gary Roth have done) and more comprehensively (like Marc Bousquet), and it needs to be explained to the People. It's something few have endeavored, because it isn't profitable, not even for tenure in some cases. 

Without our own sustainable business model, the Higher Education Inquirer will continue writing (and prompt others to write) stories significant to workers and consumers, the folks who deserve to be enlightened and who deserve to tell their stories. 

And as long as we can, the Higher Education Inquirer will ask the Establishment for answers that only they know, something few others are willing to do. 

What would a second Trump administration mean for higher education? Summing up Project 2025 (Bryan Alexander)

[Editor's Note: This article first appeared at BryanAlexander.org.]

What happens to higher education if Trump wins November’s election?

We’ve been exploring this question over the past year, including months of reading, analysis, reflection, and conversation about Project 2025 might mean for higher education. Today I’d like to sum up what we found.

The book, Mandate for Leadership, addresses academia directly on multiple levels. I’ll break them down here. The implications for the broader society within which colleges and universities exist – that’s a subject for another post.

I’ve organized the various ideas and threads into several headers: the Department of Education, higher education economics, international education and research, research supported and opposed, military connections, sex education, and anti-intellectualism.

Higher education and the Department of Education Many accounts of Project 2025’s educational impact draw attention to its attack on the Department of Education, which makes sense, since this is where the document focuses its academic attention. to begin with, Mandate for Leadership wants to break up the DoE and distribute its functions to other federal units. For example, the work the Office for Postsecondary Education (OPE) does would move to the Department of Labor, while “programs deemed important to our national security interests [shift] to the Department of State.” (327).

It would revise the student loan system to a degree. “Federal loans would be assigned directly to the Treasury Department, which would manage collections and defaults.” (327-330) Income-based repayment schemes would continue, but with restrictions. (337-8) Project 2025 would end the Biden team’s Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, along with “time-based and occupation-based student loan forgiveness” plans. (361) More ambitiously, the new government could just privatize loans. (353)

The chapter’s author also calls for “rejecting gender ideology and critical race theory” in the department or through its successor units. (322) This might also proceed via changes to one law, as a new secretary would “[w]ork with Congress to amend Title IX to include due process requirements; define “sex” under Title IX to mean only biological sex recognized at birth; and strengthen protections for faith-based educational institutions, programs, and activities.” (333) This culture war move could have another legal feature, given the call to amend FERPA in order to make it easier for college students to sue the government for privacy violations, in response to school support of transgender and nonbinary students. (344-346)

The obverse of these moves is having the new DoE or its replacements “promulgat[ing] a new regulation to require the Secretary of Education to allocate at least 40 percent of funding to international business programs that teach about free markets and economics.” Additionally, the government would “require institutions, faculty, and fellowship recipients to certify that they intend to further the stated statutory goals of serving American interests,” although it’s unclear what that would mean in practice. (356)

This section’s author, Lindsay Burke, also wants the next administration to change its relationship with post-secondary accreditors. She supports Florida’s new policy of requiring public universities to cycle through accrediting agencies. (332) Burke also wants to encourage new accreditors to start up. (355) Her chapter further calls for a new administration to prevent accreditation agencies from advocating for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) work on campuses. (352)

The economics of higher education The Department of Education chapter would see a revamped Department of Education or its successors “[r]equir[ing]… ‘skin in the game’ from colleges to help hold them accountable for loan repayment.” (341) I can’t see how this would work in detail. Her new federal administration would also reduce funding to academic research by cutting reimbursement for indirect costs. (355)

That section also wants to reduce the labor market’s demand for post-secondary degrees. Under the header “Minimize bachelor’s degree requirements” we find: “The President should issue an executive order stating that a college degree shall not be required for any federal job unless the requirements of the job specifically demand it.” (357). Later on in the book, the Department of Labor section section also calls on Congress to end college degree requirements for federal positions. (597) That chapter wants to boost apprenticeships, mostly likely in competition with college and university study. (594-5)

International research and education. Cutting down immigration is a major Project 2025 theme, and the book does connect this to academia. It calls out international students like so:
ICE should end its current cozy deference to educational institutions and remove security risks from the program. This requires working with the Department of State to eliminate or significantly reduce the number of visas issued to foreign students from enemy nations. (141)

First, this would impact many would-be students’ careers. Second, implementing such a policy would likely depress international student interest.

Project 2025 consistently focuses on China as America’s enemy, and this means it wants United States higher education to decouple from that adversary or else face consequences. For example, the introduction warns that “[u]niversities taking money from the CCP should lose their accreditation, charters, and eligibility for federal funds.” Later in the text is some language about the government and universities supporting American but not Chinese research and development. (100) Another section sees “research institutions and academia” playing a role in Cold War 2.0:
Corporate America, technology companies, research institutions, and academia must be willing, educated partners in this generational fight to protect our national security interests, economic interests, national sovereignty, and intellectual property as well as the broader rules-based order—all while avoiding the tendency to cave to the left-wing activists and investors who ignore the China threat and increasingly dominate the corporate world. (emphases added; 218)

Later on, the Department of Justice discussion offers this recommendation:

key goals for the China Initiative that included development of an enforcement strategy concerning researchers in labs and universities who were being coopted into stealing critical U.S. technologies, identification of opportunities to address supply-chain threats more effectively, and education of colleges and universities about potential threats from Chinese influence efforts on campus. (556)

This seems to describe increased DoJ scrutiny over colleges and universities. I’m not sure what “education… about potential threats” means, although I suspect it might include pressure on academics.

The Department of Commerce section wants to “[t]ighten… the definition of ‘fundamental research’ to address exploitation of the open U.S. university system by authoritarian governments through funding, students and researchers, and recruitment” (673) More succinctly, that chapter calls for strategic decoupling from China (670, 674). We can imagine a new federal administration – along with, perhaps, state governments, businesses, nonprofits, and foundations – asking academia to play its role in that great separation. One of the trade policy chapters broods about how “more than 300,000 Communist Chinese nationals attend U.S. universities” and it’s hard not to see this as a call for reducing that number. (785)

That chapter’s author, Peter Navarro, condemns one leading American university for allegedly enabling Chinese power:

Huawei, well-known within the American intelligence community as an instrument of Chinese military espionage, has partnered with the University of California–Berkeley on research that focuses on artificial intelligence and related areas such as deep learning, reinforcement learning, machine learning, natural language processing, and computer vision, all of which have important future military applications.28 In this way, UC–Berkeley, whether unwittingly or wittingly, helps to boost Communist China’s capabilities and quest for military dominance. (785-6)

I can’t help but read this as a call for federal scrutiny of academic international partnerships, with sanctions in the wings.

Project 2025 looks at other regions of the globe and wants higher education to help. For example, the State Department chapter calls on American campuses to assist its African policy: “The U.S. should support capable African military and security operations through the State Department and other federal agencies responsible for granting foreign military education, training, and security assistance.” (187)

Other federal units come in for transformation which impacts colleges and universities. One chapter calls for “reinstituti[ng] the National Security Higher Education Advisory Board.” (Wikipedia; 218) The USAID chapter would cut some post-secondary support, based on the argument that “[w]e must admit that USAID’s investments in the education sector, for example, serve no other purpose than to subsidize corrupt, incompetent, and hostile regimes.” (275)

Support for and opposition to research Project 2025 consistently calls for research and development, at least in certain fields. The Department of Energy chapter enthusiastically promotes science. That chapter also tends to pair research with security, so we might infer increased security requirements for academic energy work. Alternative energy and decarbonization research would likely not receive federal support from McNamee’s departments, as he might see them as a “threat to the grid.” (373)

The document also calls for transparency many times, which might benefit academics as it could (should it occur) give greater access to more documentation. One passage actually uses the language of open source code: “True transparency will be a defining characteristic of a conservative EPA. This will be reflected in all agency work, including the establishment of opensource [sic] science, to build not only transparency and awareness among the public, but also trust.” (417)

On the flip side, Project 2025 opposes climate research throughout. For a sample of the intensity of this belief,

Mischaracterizing the state of our environment generally and the actual harms reasonably attributable to climate change specifically is a favored tool that the Left uses to scare the American public into accepting their ineffective, liberty-crushing regulations, diminished private property rights, and exorbitant costs. (419)

That passage exists in the Environmental Protection Agency chapter, and fits into its author’s desire to cut back the EPA in general, but particularly to end its support for academic research. There are specific examples, such as “[r]epeal[ing] Inflation Reduction Act programs providing grants for environmental science activities” (440). This is also where we see a sign of Project 2025’s desire to get more political appointees into federal positions. There would be “a Science Adviser reporting directly to the Administrator in addition to a substantial investment (no fewer than six senior political appointees) charged with overseeing and reforming EPA research and science activities.” (436) That would have further negative effects on academic work.

Later on, the Department of Transportation chapter calls for shutting down the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Why? NOAA is “one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry and, as such, is harmful to future U.S. prosperity.” (675) Faculty, staff, and students who rely on NOAA would lose out.

Military and civilian higher education There are many connections here, reflecting a view that all of academia can contribute in an instrumental way to American military and foreign policy goals, while also being reformed by a new administration. For example, the text calls for reforming post-secondary military education, asking a new government to “[a]udit the course offerings at military academies to remove Marxist indoctrination, eliminate tenure for academic professionals, and apply the same rules to instructors that are applied to other DOD contracting personnel.” (104)

There’s also an idea for creating a new military academy, a Space Force Academy:
to attract top aero–astro students, engineers, and scientists and develop astronauts. The academy could be attached initially to a large existing research university like the California Institute of Technology or MIT, share faculty and funding, and eventually be built separately to be on par with the other service academies. (119)

Related to this, a later discussion calls for the creation of a new academic institution dedicated to financial warfare:

Treasury should examine creating a school of financial warfare jointly with DOD. If the U.S. is to rely on financial weapons, tools, and strategies to prosecute international defensive and offensive objectives, it must create a specially trained group of experts dedicated to the study, training, testing, and preparedness of these deterrents. (704)

Earlier in the book there’s some discussion of reforming the Pentagon’s purchasing systems calls for spreading some Defense Acquisition University (DAU) functions to “include accreditation of non-DOD institutions” – i.e., potentially some civilian institutions. (98)

Project 2025 would reverse certain Biden- and Obama-era human rights provisions for military academies’ faculty, staff, and students. It calls for “individuals… with gender dysphoria [to] be expelled from military service…” (103)

Sex education, research, support for student life All of this appears under threat. Here’s the relevant passage from the introduction, a shocking response to pornography: “Educators and public librarians who purvey [pornography] should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.” (5) This seems aimed at K-12 schools, where so much culture war battling has occurred, but we shouldn’t assume higher education would escape. Remember that it’s a common strategy for critics to label sex education and research materials as porn.

Anti-intellectualism Project 2025 respects knowledge and skills insofar as they assist with making a new administration succeed, but is at the same time very skeptical of their role in broader society, when formally recognized. It wants universities to develop new technologies, but not to advance DEI. For a clear sense of what I’m talking about, here’s the introduction’s take on credentials:

Intellectual sophistication, advanced degrees, financial success, and all other markers of elite status have no bearing on a person’s knowledge of the one thing most necessary for governance: what it means to live well. That knowledge is available to each of us, no matter how humble our backgrounds or how unpretentious our attainments. It is open to us to read in the book of human nature, to which we are all offered the key just by merit of our shared humanity. (10)

One could respond that most of the book’s authors possess intellectual sophistication and/or advanced degrees and/or financial success, but that’s part of the conservative populist paradigm.

Summing up, Project 2025 presents multiple challenges, threats, and dangers to American higher education. Proposed policies strike at academic teaching, research, finances, autonomy, and some of the most vulnerable in our community. It outlines routes for expanded governmental surveillance of and action upon colleges and universities, not to mention other parts of the academic ecosystem, such as accreditors and public research entities.

Keep in mind that Project 2025 isn’t necessarily a total guide to a potential Trump administration. The candidate has denounced it and led the publication of another platform. I’d like to explore that document next. We should also track Trump’s various pronouncements, such as his consistent desire to deport millions of people. For that alone we should expect a major impact on higher education.

Yet Project 2025 draws deeply on Republican politicians and office holders, not to mention conservative thinking. It seems fair to expect a new administration to try realizing at least a chunk of it, if not more.

What do you think of this sketch of a potential Trump administration?

Elite Universities on Lockdown. Protestors Regroup.

[Updated 9-29-24]

Elite universities have changed their policies to significantly reduce free speech and free assembly. In response, college students and their faculty allies are having to regroup and rethink how they protest the US-Israel war against Palestine as it expands in the Middle East. On the establishment side, will universities further crack down on students and faculty, wherever peaceful protests might occur?  

Campus "Crime and Punishment"

Elite universities like UCLA have dramatically reduced the areas that students can speak and assemble freely, restricting protesters to free speech zones, a common tactic used by the US government during the War on Terror. Universities have also upped surveillance measures and punished students involved in protests, with limited due process. 

The visible resistance may now be limited on campuses where students have been detained, assaulted, arrested, expelled, and banned from campus. Foreign students wary of facing deportation may also be keeping quiet, publicly.     

In California, Governor Gavin Newsom has signed a bill to update public university codes of conduct "and train students on how to protest with civility, a response to pro-Palestinian demonstrations that erupted across the state last spring." The bill was opposed by pro-Palestinian Groups and the ACLU.

Protests Off Campus

There have been a number of protests against the US-backed war that has expanded from Gaza, to the Occupied West Bank, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and Iran. Demonstrations have been held in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, DC and other college towns, including Iowa City, home of the University of Iowa.  Those protests will be closely observed and documented by law enforcement. 

With the help of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the fossil fuel lobby, states have already crafted anti-protest legislation to reduce public free speech and free assembly.  According to the UK Guardian, 45 states have considered new anti-protest legislation since 2017.  

Protests on Campus

Over the last week, there were small protests at Penn State University and the University of Arizona.  The Penn State demonstration, which had about 60 attendees, was supported by Penn State Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), the Student Committee for Defense and Solidarity (SCDS), the Muslim Students’ Association (MSA), the United Socialists at Penn State (USPSU) and the People's Defense Front - Northern Appalachia. The impromptu Arizona protest was set up by the Party for Socialism and Liberation. At Cornell University, about 100 students protested a career fair that included defense contractors Boeing and L3 Harris. It's not surprising that these demonstrations would be small, given recent crackdowns across the country. 

Collaboration Between Elite Schools and Law Enforcement

Will elite schools work with law enforcement at the local, state, federal, and international level to further restrict free speech and freedom of assembly?  And university administrators try to quell dissent, will students be more harshly disciplined for planning and engaging in peaceful protests, of any type, on and off campus? 

Related links:

 
What caused 70 US universities to arrest protesting students while many more did not?  

Campus Protests, Campus Safety, and the Student Imagination 

Democratic Protests on Campus: Modeling the Better World We Seek (Annelise Orleck)

Methods of Student Nonviolent Resistance

Wikipedia Community Documents Pro-Palestinian Protests on University and College Campuses

One Fascism or Two?: The Reemergence of "Fascism(s)" in US Higher Education

A People's History of Higher Education in the US

Wealth and Want Part 1: Multi-Billion Dollar Endowments

US higher education reflects and reinforces a world of increasing inequality, injustice, and inhumanity. This system (or some would call it an industry) should function as a conduit between good K-12 education, good jobs, and the wellness of all its citizens, whether they attend or not. But increasingly, it does not. 

The first installments of the Wealth and Want series examine the concentration of wealth in the US higher education system.  And this article focuses on loosely regulated university endowments. While many American schools struggle to provide basic amenities and academic resources, elite universities boast endowments that rival the GDPs of small nations. And they pay little in taxes. 

The Endowment Elite and Ill-Gotten Gains

At the pinnacle of higher education wealth are Harvard ($49B), The University of Texas System ($44B), Yale ($40B), Stanford ($36B), and Princeton ($34B). These institutions have amassed endowments that provide a steady stream of income for investments, scholarships, and research initiatives. How their money is invested is rarely known.  

Endowment managers at elite schools typically make more than a million dollars a year. The most elite schools pay their managers $5M-$10M a year, with compensation largely based on returns. But those managers still get hefty salaries even when they lose money.

There are more than 120 schools with endowments greater than a billion dollars. But the 20 richest university endowments together hold more wealth than the other 5000 or so other higher education institutions combined. 

Elite endowments are often the result of centuries of fundraising, donations, and strategic (sometimes shady) investments. For many of the most prestigious schools, it began with land theft and generations of forced labor. 

For other wealthy schools, it was the result of philanthropic robber barons like Johns Hopkins (who also held captives), Andrew Carnegie, Leland Stanford, John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and James Buchanan Duke who made their wealth through mass exploitation of people and the planet. 

For wealthy flagship state universities, it also came from land theft. In the case of the University of Texas, its wealth largely came from, and to some degree still comes from the exploitation of fossil fuels that jeopardize the planet.

Historical Context and Structural Inequality

• Land Theft and the Founding of Institutions: The establishment of many American universities, including Ivy League institutions and those founded under the Morrill Act, was often intertwined with land theft from Native American tribes. This practice, often referred to as "land dispossession" or "Indian removal," was a key component of Manifest Destiny and the expansion of European settlement across the continent.
• Ivy League Universities: Institutions like Harvard, Yale, and Columbia were granted land by colonial governments, which often acquired these lands through treaties that were coerced or violated. They also used enslaved labor to build and maintain their wealth.  
• Funding Models: The funding models for public higher education often favor larger, research-intensive universities. This can lead to underfunding for smaller, less prestigious institutions, particularly those serving marginalized communities.
• Endowment Inequality and Profits Over People and Planet: Endowments are a powerful tool for wealth accumulation and institutional advantage. The concentration of endowments in a few elite universities can exacerbate existing inequalities and create a self-perpetuating cycle of privilege.  These endowments have also engaged in shady investments that perpetuated worker oppression, genocide, and environmental destruction. 

Related links:

Pay and Chief Investment Officers: Good Money while It Lasts

Tax Wealthy Private Universities Now (Paul Prescod, Jacobin)