American Universities Complicit in Genocide, Again

As universities across the United States respond with increasing repression to student-led protests against the genocide in Palestine, historical parallels emerge that challenge the very principles of academic freedom and moral responsibility. The aggressive crackdowns—ranging from mass arrests to administrative threats—echo disturbing precedents from The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower by historian Stephen H. Norwood. The book exposes how many American universities, particularly in the 1930s, were complicit in Nazi ideology through appeasement, censorship, and the suppression of anti-fascist voices. The current treatment of pro-Palestinian student activists suggests that history is, once again, repeating itself.

The Suppression of Moral Dissent in Higher Education

Norwood’s research demonstrates how elite U.S. universities—including Harvard, Columbia, and Yale—maintained diplomatic and academic relationships with Nazi Germany, even as the regime persecuted Jews, socialists, and other marginalized groups. Student activists who sought to protest these ties were ignored, censored, or dismissed as “radicals.” The pattern is eerily similar today: pro-Palestinian students, many of whom are calling attention to potential war crimes in Gaza and the West Bank, are met with suspensions, arrests, and a media narrative that frames them as dangerous or disruptive.

This is not simply an issue of campus policy. It is an indication of how institutions of higher learning align themselves with power—whether it be the Nazi government in the 1930s or the Netanyahu government today—at the expense of justice and free expression.

The Influence of Financial and Political Interests

One of Norwood’s most damning revelations was how American universities welcomed Nazi officials on campus, accepted funding from German sources, and ignored early reports of persecution. Today, many of these same institutions maintain deep financial ties to Israel, including research partnerships, donor influence, and endowment investments in companies linked to the Israeli military-industrial complex.

This financial entanglement shapes institutional responses to protest. Instead of engaging with the moral and legal arguments posed by students—who cite documented reports from the UN, Human Rights Watch, and other credible organizations—university administrators call in police forces, disband student groups, and issue vague statements about maintaining "campus order." Just as in the 1930s, universities prioritize political and economic alliances over ethical accountability.

The Criminalization of Campus Activism

Norwood’s book describes how students protesting Nazi ties were accused of being “unruly” or “disruptive,” justifying administrative crackdowns. Today, students calling for an end to U.S. complicity in Israel’s actions face similar character assassinations, often being labeled as “terrorist sympathizers” or threats to campus safety.

Recent crackdowns have seen:

• Mass arrests of peaceful demonstrators, including those engaging in sit-ins and teach-ins.

• Surveillance and doxxing of students and faculty who express pro-Palestinian views.

• Increased administrative pressure, including suspensions, expulsions, and threats to scholarships or visas for international students.

The use of state power—often in coordination with local police, federal agencies, and even private security firms—mirrors historical instances where universities acted as enforcers of political orthodoxy rather than defenders of intellectual freedom.

What This Means for US Higher Education

If universities continue down this path, they risk further eroding their credibility as spaces for critical inquiry and moral debate. Just as history judges those who remained silent—or complicit—during the rise of fascism, future generations will scrutinize how today’s institutions responded to calls for justice in Palestine.

The lesson from The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower is clear: universities have a choice. They can either stand on the side of truth and academic freedom or become enforcers of state violence and repression. The students protesting today, much like those who opposed fascism in the 1930s, are asking their institutions to make that choice. The question is whether universities will listen—or if history will once again record their failure.

Is it safe for international students to attend US universities? Here's a list of alternatives.

In recent decades, the United States has been a top destination for international students, offering world-class universities, diverse academic programs, and a global reputation for innovation and research. Yet in recent years, many prospective international students and their families are asking a difficult question: Is it still safe to attend US universities?

This concern isn't unfounded. Safety for international students isn't just about crime rates—it includes factors like political climate, visa policies, healthcare access, racism and xenophobia, campus support, and overall quality of life. Let’s explore these factors and how they compare to alternatives like Canada, the UK, Australia, France, Germany, Ireland, and the Netherlands.

---

The United States: A Complex Landscape

Safety on Campus:
Many US universities are located in relatively safe college towns and invest heavily in campus security. However, the rise in mass shootings—including those at or near educational institutions—has sparked fear among both domestic and international students. While statistically rare, the prevalence of gun violence in the US is significantly higher than in other developed nations.

Political and Social Climate:
Under recent administrations, shifting immigration policies and fluctuating visa rules have made the US a less predictable destination. While the Biden administration has worked to stabilize student visa policies, uncertainty remains. Reports of xenophobic incidents have also raised alarms, particularly for students from Asian and Middle Eastern backgrounds.

Healthcare Concerns:
The US has no universal healthcare system. International students are often required to purchase private insurance, which can be expensive and confusing. Access to mental health services, though improving, varies widely by institution.

Post-Graduation Opportunities:
The US still offers compelling Optional Practical Training (OPT) and STEM extensions for international students looking to work post-graduation, but the pathway to long-term work or permanent residency remains complicated.

---

Alternatives Worth Considering

Canada

• Pros: Politically stable, comparatively easier immigration pathways, high-quality universities (e.g., University of Toronto, McGill), and widespread public support for international students.

• Safety: Low crime rates and almost no gun violence.

• Work & Immigration: Canada has one of the most international-student-friendly post-graduation work permit programs. Many students transition to permanent residency with relative ease.

United Kingdom

• Pros: Rich academic heritage, home to globally ranked institutions (Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial), English-speaking environment.

• Safety: Urban areas face petty crime but gun violence is rare.

• Work & Immigration: Recent changes allow graduates to stay for up to 2 years post-study (3 years for PhDs), a significant improvement over prior policies.

Australia

• Pros: High academic standards, English-speaking, growing international student population, welcoming attitude.

• Safety: Generally safe, though some cities report instances of racial tension.

• Work & Immigration: Australia offers generous post-study work visas and clearer paths to permanent residency compared to the US.

Germany

• Pros: No or low tuition at many public universities, strong engineering and technical programs, growing English-taught courses.

• Safety: Very low crime, excellent public infrastructure.

• Work & Immigration: Post-study work options are available, and Germany is actively recruiting skilled graduates into its workforce.

France

• Pros: Prestigious institutions (e.g., Sorbonne, Sciences Po), growing number of English-language programs, rich culture.

• Safety: Urban areas may experience occasional unrest, but campuses are generally safe.

• Work & Immigration: Non-EU students can work part-time and stay for a period after graduation. The government has signaled increasing openness to skilled international graduates.

Ireland

• Pros: English-speaking, welcoming culture, growing reputation in tech and pharma education, strong ties to US multinationals with Irish HQs.

• Safety: One of the safest countries in Europe with low crime rates.

• Work & Immigration: Students can work part-time and stay up to two years post-graduation (Graduate Stay Back Visa). Ireland also offers a relatively smooth path to work visas and longer-term residency.

Netherlands

• Pros: Known for its high quality of life, wide selection of English-taught programs (especially at the master’s level), and a progressive, inclusive society.

• Safety: Very safe, well-regulated cities with strong infrastructure and low crime.

• Work & Immigration: Offers a one-year "Orientation Year" visa after graduation for job-seeking. The Netherlands has a growing demand for international talent, particularly in tech, business, and engineering.

---

Making the Right Choice

For many students, the US remains attractive for its research opportunities, innovation hubs, and alumni networks. But safety, cost of living, mental health support, and post-graduation outcomes are now more significant factors than ever.

Choosing where to study abroad is deeply personal—and increasingly strategic. Canada, the UK, Australia, Germany, France, Ireland, and the Netherlands all offer strong alternatives that may be more welcoming and stable in today’s climate.

Prospective international students should weigh these factors carefully, consult with advisors, and consider long-term goals—educational, professional, and personal—when making their decisions.

Trump Administration Clamps Down on Free Speech at US Universities

When the Trump administration announced in 2019 that it would protect free speech on college campuses, many students expected more room for open dialogue and critical debate. Instead, what followed was a pattern of surveillance, intimidation, defunding, and deportation—especially for those who dared to speak out against the administration’s policies or support marginalized communities.

From targeting international students and critical scholars to slashing funding for diversity programs, the administration’s actions have drawn comparisons to another controversial leader: Viktor Orbán of Hungary.

Free Speech for Some, Silence for Others

While the Trump administration claimed it was defending “viewpoint diversity,” in practice, it promoted a narrow ideological agenda. Conservative speakers were protected—even championed—but student protesters, international scholars, and professors who voiced dissent were often punished.

When students participated in protests for racial justice or spoke out on Palestine, they faced disciplinary threats and heightened surveillance. International students were especially vulnerable. Some had their visas reviewed or revoked after attending demonstrations, while others were detained or deported under pretexts tied to immigration status.

In 2020, the administration tried to force all international students out of the U.S. if their classes went fully online during the COVID-19 pandemic—a move widely condemned as cruel and chaotic, later reversed only after multiple universities sued.

Defunding Diversity and Equity

By 2025, the administration took its culture war one step further: issuing a directive that effectively forced universities to shut down Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs or lose federal funding. Programs focused on racial justice, gender equity, and LGBTQ+ inclusion were defunded. Simultaneously, $600 million in grants for teacher training programs that promoted social justice and equity were slashed.

These measures, critics argue, didn’t just undermine student support services—they signaled that certain identities and ideas were unwelcome on campus.

A Playbook Borrowed from Budapest?

Observers have noted striking parallels between Trump’s university policies and those of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. In Hungary, Orbán systematically dismantled academic freedom—forcing Central European University (CEU) out of the country, banning gender studies, and rewriting research agendas to align with nationalist ideology.

Both Trump and Orbán framed their attacks on universities as a defense of traditional values against “woke” ideology or “globalist elites.” In both cases, universities became symbolic battlegrounds in a larger culture war.

What’s at Stake for Students

For students, these policies go beyond politics—they impact daily life, classroom learning, and campus climate. Under the Trump administration, students who once found community in DEI centers or advocacy groups now face a shrinking space for belonging. Faculty worry about what they can teach or research without retribution. International students question their safety and place in U.S. higher ed.

The Fight for Academic Freedom Isn’t Over

Even as the Trump administration intensified its crackdown, student organizers, faculty allies, and civil rights groups continued to push back—through lawsuits, protests, and community defense. The parallels to Hungary serve as both a warning and a call to action: what happened there could happen here, unless students and educators remain vigilant.

In an era where free speech is used as a political weapon, the real test is whether we defend all voices—including those that challenge power. If universities are to remain places of learning, they must also be places of courage.

A Planned Failure? The Dangerous Path to Privatizing Student Loans

In a move that has raised eyebrows across Washington and beyond, President Donald Trump recently announced a plan to transfer the U.S. Department of Education’s vast student loan portfolio—totaling a staggering $1.8 trillion—to the Small Business Administration (SBA). Ostensibly, the goal is to "reorganize" and streamline the management of federal student loans. But behind the curtain, some experts and insiders are questioning whether this bold move is merely the beginning of a much darker plan: privatization at the expense of millions of American borrowers.

The Alleged 'Rescue' of the Loan Portfolio

The White House has framed the transfer as a necessary step to relieve the Department of Education (ED) of a heavy burden, positioning the Small Business Administration as the new "caretaker" of the nation’s student debt. According to President Trump, the SBA—under the leadership of Kelly Loeffler—will now handle the $1.8 trillion student loan portfolio, while the Department of Education focuses on other key educational initiatives.

For some, the move seems like a fresh approach to a problem that has long plagued U.S. higher education: the overwhelming student debt crisis. However, a deeper look into the mechanics of the transfer suggests that this could be the first step toward a far more troubling goal: the dismantling of the federal student loan system and the privatization of debt, a shift that could harm millions of consumers in the process.

The SBA’s Inexperience with Student Loans

For starters, the SBA has no real experience with managing educational debt. Historically, the agency has focused on small business loans, a niche financial product entirely different from student loans. The SBA is not equipped to handle the complex structure of federal student loans, which include income-driven repayment plans, loan forgiveness programs, and myriad protections for borrowers struggling to repay their debt.

While the SBA does have experience guaranteeing loans, it has never managed a portfolio of this size or complexity. With the agency also facing a 43% workforce reduction, including 2,700 staff members, it seems highly unlikely that the SBA will be able to competently manage the student loan system—especially when 40% of these loans are already in default or behind on payments.

This raises an obvious question: is the SBA being set up to fail?

The Planned Failure

According to several former senior officials within the Department of Education and others close to the discussions, the transfer of the student loan portfolio to the SBA could very well be a deliberate failure. These sources suggest that the true purpose of the transfer is not to improve the system, but to destabilize it—creating a crisis that would ultimately justify selling off the loan portfolio to private companies. In other words, the apparent "failure" of the SBA to manage the loans could be the prelude to a much broader and more damaging shift.

“This is the classic playbook of the privatization agenda: create a crisis, then say the only solution is to sell off the asset to the private sector,” one former senior Education Department employee explained. “If the SBA fails to manage the portfolio, it will create a narrative that only the private sector can do it effectively, and that will pave the way for Wall Street to swoop in.”

This strategy mirrors similar efforts in other sectors, where privatization has often been sold as a solution to government inefficiency. In the case of student loans, the "failure" of the SBA to properly manage the portfolio could lead to a private sector takeover, where for-profit companies would be free to set the terms of repayment, charge higher interest rates, and strip away borrower protections—all at the expense of consumers.

The Consumer Cost

While the government may pocket the short-term profits from selling off the portfolio, it is borrowers who will feel the brunt of the consequences. Private companies, driven by the desire for profits, would have little incentive to offer the same borrower-friendly protections currently available under the federal student loan system.

The end of income-driven repayment options, the loss of loan forgiveness programs, and an end to the temporary moratorium on student loan payments could push millions of borrowers into even deeper financial distress. Higher interest rates, less favorable repayment terms, and a complete lack of support for struggling borrowers are all potential outcomes if the loans are sold to the private sector.

Moreover, the move could disproportionately affect low-income borrowers and those already in default, who would likely face harsher terms under a privatized system. For many, this could mean years—or even decades—of paying off debt that continues to balloon, with no hope of relief.

A Dangerous Precedent

If this plan succeeds, it will set a dangerous precedent. The government's involvement in student loans has, for decades, been a safety net for borrowers. The idea of privatizing this essential system could open the floodgates for more essential public services to be sold off to private corporations, with little regard for the public good.

“Once you give the private sector control over something as critical as education debt, it’s hard to see where it stops,” said another insider. “This is not just about student loans. It’s about how we view the role of government in providing public services.”

The Long-Term Fallout

In the long run, the privatization of student loans could exacerbate the country’s growing wealth inequality, widen the racial wealth gap, and place an insurmountable burden on future generations of borrowers. For many, student loans are not just a financial issue—they are a life issue, affecting everything from career prospects to the ability to buy a home or start a family. The sale of the loan portfolio could result in an economic landscape where the cost of education becomes a permanent burden on a generation, with few avenues for relief.

A Predatory Scheme?

The proposed transfer of the student loan portfolio to the SBA may appear to be an effort to reform the system, but closer inspection reveals a much darker agenda: one that seeks to create a crisis that will pave the way for the privatization of federal student loans. While the government may stand to gain in the short term, the long-term consequences for borrowers could be devastating.

In the end, the real price of this maneuver will be paid by consumers, who could face higher costs, fewer protections, and more financial instability. If this plan moves forward as expected, it will be a devastating blow to the millions of Americans who rely on the federal student loan system—a Pyrrhic victory that benefits private interests, but leaves consumers to bear the consequences.

In the quest for privatization, the true cost of this gamble may well be borne by those who can least afford it: the borrowers.

Donald Trump's 9-Year War Against US Education

Since his emergence on the national political stage, Donald Trump has been a polarizing figure, bringing his brand of combative rhetoric and controversial policies to every corner of American society. One of the key arenas where his influence has been felt the most is in the realm of education. From 2016 to 2025, Trump’s war on education has manifested through a series of legislative actions, executive orders, and cultural provocations that aimed to reshape the American education system. These efforts have targeted everything from public schools to higher education institutions, and even the very curriculum taught to students.

The Deconstruction of Public Education

At the heart of Trump’s vision for education was the dismantling of traditional public schooling. During his first term as president, Trump and his allies sought to undermine the very foundation of public education by promoting privatization and school choice initiatives. His administration pushed for expanded funding for charter schools and private school vouchers, which would allow families to use public funds to pay for private education.

This movement gained momentum in 2017 when Betsy DeVos, a staunch advocate for school privatization, was appointed as Secretary of Education. Under her leadership, the Department of Education rolled back Obama-era regulations designed to protect students and promote equitable access to education. Critics argued that DeVos’s policies favored wealthy families and private institutions while leaving public schools underfunded and underserved, particularly in marginalized communities.

The Attack on College Campuses

Trump’s war on education wasn’t confined to K-12 schooling. Higher education was also a major battleground during his presidency and beyond. In his first few years in office, Trump took aim at what he saw as the liberal indoctrination of students on college campuses. His rhetoric about “political correctness” and “safe spaces” served as a rallying cry for conservative students and faculty, but also sparked fierce resistance from progressives and academics who felt that free speech and intellectual diversity were under threat.

Trump’s administration took several steps to curb what he described as “left-wing bias” in higher education. In 2019, he signed an executive order that threatened to withhold federal funding from universities that did not protect free speech, a move that critics viewed as a political stunt to rally his base. The Trump administration also rolled back protections for marginalized groups, including Title IX protections for transgender students, and shifted the Department of Education’s focus away from investigating discrimination and harassment cases in favor of addressing “free speech” concerns.

Curricular Controversies and Cultural Wars

The Trump era also saw an escalation of the culture wars, particularly with regard to the curriculum being taught in schools. Trump and his allies began to target lessons related to race, gender, and American history, framing them as divisive or unpatriotic. In 2020, following the Black Lives Matter protests, Trump launched the 1776 Commission, a response to what he viewed as a growing movement to “rewrite” American history. The commission’s purpose was to promote a more “patriotic” curriculum that would emphasize the positive aspects of American history, while downplaying the country’s legacy of slavery and racial inequality.

In the following years, many states, particularly those led by Republican governors, passed laws banning the teaching of critical race theory (CRT) in public schools. These laws prohibited the teaching of concepts that might make students “uncomfortable” about America’s history of racism, and further entrenched the ideological divide over how history and social issues should be taught in the classroom. Trump’s rhetoric and policies had a direct impact on how schools and teachers navigated the increasingly charged political atmosphere.

The COVID-19 Pandemic and Its Impact on Education

Perhaps the most dramatic intersection of Trump’s policies and education came during the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump consistently downplayed the severity of the virus and pushed for schools to reopen quickly, even as the pandemic raged across the nation. His administration provided little federal guidance or support for school districts struggling with the challenges of online learning and public health concerns. Trump’s insistence that schools should be open for in-person instruction became a point of contention, with many educators and parents concerned about the safety of students and staff.

While some states followed Trump’s call to reopen schools, others, especially in blue states, opted to remain virtual or implement hybrid models. This divide further exacerbated the political polarization over education, with Trump framing the debate as a fight between “freedom” and “control,” while critics argued that his policies endangered public health and undermined the long-term well-being of students.

Legacy of Division and Reshaping Education

As Trump’s presidency drew to a close, it became clear that his approach to education had left a lasting impact on the country. His administration’s policies had deepened the divisions between public and private schooling, amplified cultural and political debates about what students should learn, and exacerbated existing inequalities in the education system.

In 2024, as Trump continued to remain a significant force in American politics, the ideological battle over education remained unresolved. His push for school choice and privatization, along with his ongoing influence on local education policy, suggested that the “war on education” was far from over. States across the country continued to grapple with issues such as curriculum control, free speech on college campuses, and the role of government in funding education.

Dismantling the U.S. Department of Education

As Trump’s influence stretched into the second half of the decade, the war on education reached a dramatic new phase. In 2025, following his return to office, Trump signed an executive order that effectively began the process of dismantling the U.S. Department of Education. This move came as part of a larger effort to reduce the role of the federal government in everyday life, echoing Trump’s long-standing rhetoric of decentralization and states’ rights.

The department’s responsibilities were reassigned to various state agencies, with a strong emphasis on allowing individual states to shape their own educational policies without federal interference. This was seen by Trump as a victory for conservatives who had long criticized federal education policies for being too one-size-fits-all. Critics, however, argued that this dismantling of the department could lead to a patchwork of educational standards across the country, further entrenching inequalities in access to quality education.

Furthermore, the reduction in federal oversight had significant implications for funding, student protections, and the enforcement of civil rights in education. Many feared that without the Department of Education’s regulatory power, vulnerable students, including those from low-income backgrounds and marginalized communities, would suffer from a lack of protections and resources.

Cuts to Science and Research Funding

Trump’s policies also have had a significant impact on scientific research at major universities, with institutions like Johns Hopkins University and the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) facing severe cuts to critical research funding. Johns Hopkins University, one of the largest recipients of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants, announced plans to eliminate over 2,000 positions in response to federal cuts, potentially losing over $100 million in research funding. This reduction in federal support, especially for scientific research, had major consequences for ongoing studies, from medical advancements to climate change research, affecting the broader academic community.

Meanwhile, the University of Pennsylvania also experienced significant financial strain due to cuts in federal contracts, which impacted their research funding and innovation. The Trump administration's cuts to science funding across the board resulted in a stifling of some of the nation’s top research institutions, creating ripple effects throughout the entire academic and scientific community. The loss of funding for groundbreaking research projects at these prestigious institutions further strained the ability of scientists to pursue critical work in fields such as public health, climate change, and cancer research.

Victory Against Columbia University

One of the most high-profile actions taken in the final phase of Trump’s war on education was his administration's attack on elite institutions, particularly Columbia University. As one of the most prestigious Ivy League schools in the U.S., Columbia had become a target for Trump’s criticisms of what he perceived as liberal bias on college campuses.

In 2025, Trump and his allies escalated their campaign against universities, particularly those with strong liberal reputations. Columbia was singled out due to its left-leaning faculty and student body, as well as its vocal support for progressive policies related to climate change, racial justice, and gender equality. The Trump administration levied significant threats of withdrawing federal funding from the university unless it adhered to a more conservative curriculum. Additionally, Trump’s education policy advisers launched investigations into the institution’s handling of free speech issues, particularly in relation to controversial speakers and protests on campus.

By March 2025, Columbia faced a stark financial crisis after losing $400 million in federal funding for its failure to address antisemitism on campus. The administration warned 60 other institutions about similar consequences unless they ensured the safety of Jewish students. In its eventual capitulation to the Trump Administration, Columbia allowed student activist Mahmoud Khalil to be arrested and sent to a detention facility in Louisiana. The decision further fueled national debates about the balance between free speech and university autonomy.

Education as the Frontline in America’s Cultural Battle

Looking back at Trump’s influence on education between 2016 and 2025, it’s clear that the battle over how America educates its children and young adults became a focal point for larger cultural, political, and ideological conflicts. Trump’s legacy in education is defined by attempts to reshape the system in his image—whether through pushing for privatization, engaging in culture wars over curriculum, or sowing division over the future of public education. The ultimate impact of his policies will continue to reverberate for years to come, shaping not just the educational landscape, but the future of American society itself.

States, Suing Trump Over Gutting of Education Dept., Cite Threat of Predatory College Abuses (David Halperin)

Twenty-one Democratic state attorneys general sued President Trump and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon today, 48 hours after the Department of Education announced it was firing more than 1,300 employees, which, combined with previously Trump-Musk efforts to cull the staff, reduced the employee roster to less than half of the 4000+ person team that was working as of January.

The 53-page complaint, filed in federal court in Massachusetts, alleges that the staff reductions are illegal and unconstitutional, because they are “equivalent to incapacitating key, statutorily-mandated functions of the Department.” The AGs say that although McMahon has authority from Congress to restructure the Department, she is “not permitted to eliminate or disrupt functions required by statute, nor can she transfer the department’s responsibilities to another agency outside of its statutory authorization.”

Among the federal statutes that the state AGs contend will be undermined by this week’s staff cuts are those covering higher education, including the Department’s obligations to ensure that federal student grants and loans may be used only at colleges and universities that provide quality educations and comply with the law. The complaint notes that the Department is charged with ensuring that colleges receiving federal aid are financially responsible, that they submit to financial audits, and that they provide adequate counseling to students concerning debt management.

The AGs also note that the Department is required to review and approve private college accrediting agencies, because under the law only schools approved by Department-recognized accreditors are eligible for federal student aid. Without that process, the AGs warn, “institutions of higher education may engage in profit-seeking behaviors without relating any educational benefits to students.”

The AGs might have added that the cuts will undermine the capacity of the Department to directly investigate colleges that engage in predatory and deceptive behavior. Data released by the Department shows the largest number of layoffs — 326 people — were at the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA), which oversees student lending and school compliance with legal obligations not to mislead and abuse students.

The Department of Education’s higher education accountability efforts over decades have often been half-hearted and ineffectual; despite the scores of staff assigned to overseeing colleges, many students, and hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars, have been directed to deceptive, poor-quality schools that have left many students worse off than when they started. But gutting these efforts to the degree suggested by this week’s staff reductions would make matters much worse. And the first-term higher education record of President Trump, guided by Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and her aide Diane Auer Jones, was heavily skewed in favor of slashing accountability rules and enforcement, providing no reason to be optimistic that an aim of slashing the staff this year is to improve accountability.

The cuts would also undermine core Department responsibilities in K-12 education, civil rights, disability rights, privacy rights, campus safety, and the student loan portfolio.

Secretary McMahon is publicly insisting that everything will be fine and more efficient with the reduced and reorganized staff. But, as the new lawsuit from the attorneys general notes, McMahon said on Tuesday that the firing are the “first step” on the road to a “total shutdown” of the Department.

The attorneys general who filed the complaint are from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, Vermont and the District of Columbia.

Former Department officials and education advocates plan to rally Friday morning at 8 am outside Department of Education headquarters in Washington to protest the mass firings and plans to shut down the agency.

[Editor's note: This article originally appeared on Republic Report.]  

Elite University Presidents: Most Hated Men (and Women) on Campus

In prestigious universities across the country, the figurehead of the institution—the president—has become a symbol of frustration and resentment among students, faculty, and staff. These figures, often once revered as academic leaders, are increasingly viewed as little more than corporate CEOs, prioritizing the interests of wealthy trustees and donors over the very people who make the university what it is: the students and the dedicated faculty and staff who carry out its mission.

At the heart of the growing discontent is the trend of university presidents restricting freedom of speech and assembly, stifling student activism, and limiting open debate in the name of "campus safety" or "institutional stability." Instead of acting as advocates for open discourse, many university presidents have aligned themselves with powerful corporate interests, turning their backs on the very values that once defined higher education. The administration's agenda is often dictated by the whims of major donors, whose influence can shape everything from university policy to the hiring and firing of professors.

The University of Chicago, long a beacon of academic freedom, has seen its leadership take a hard turn in recent years, placing increasing restrictions on student demonstrations and dissent. Under the guise of maintaining "campus order," the administration has been known to deploy private security to break up protests and limit public forums for free speech.

Harvard University, with its enormous endowment and prestigious reputation, has become another example of an institution where the president seems more concerned with appeasing donors than listening to the students and faculty. The administration has been criticized for prioritizing relationships with donors over addressing the deepening student debt crisis and growing concerns about inequality in higher education. The university has faced a wave of student-led protests demanding action on climate change, affordable tuition, and the rights of adjunct faculty, all of which were largely ignored or dismissed by the top administration.

Harvard’s massive endowment—reportedly the largest of any university in the world—has been a focal point of controversy. While it continues to grow, many argue that the university could be doing far more to address the financial burdens of its students, particularly the mounting debt facing undergraduates. Instead, the administration has focused on expanding its brand and maintaining its status as an elite institution, often prioritizing donor preferences and legacy admissions over efforts to make education more accessible. Legacy admissions, in which children of alumni are given preferential treatment, have been a point of contention, with critics arguing that this practice entrenches privilege and reduces opportunities for marginalized students.

Even at places like Princeton University, long considered a champion of academic freedom, President Christopher Eisgruber has come under fire for clamping down on student speech and assembly. While Princeton’s administration claims to support free expression, it has quietly enacted policies to restrict protestors’ access to the administration building, citing concerns about “disruption” and “disorder.” Eisgruber, who has connections to powerful alumni, has been accused of using his position to protect the interests of wealthy donors while ignoring the voices of those who are most directly affected by the university's policies.

The University of Southern California (USC) is another prime example of a university where the president’s priorities have come under increasing scrutiny from students, faculty, and staff. Under President Carol Folt, USC has become emblematic of a trend where the administration appears more aligned with wealthy donors and corporate interests than with the needs of its campus community.

Folt, who took over as USC's president in 2019, was thrust into the spotlight during a period of significant unrest. The university had already been embroiled in scandals—including the high-profile college admissions bribery scandal—and was facing criticism for its handling of sexual assault allegations within its medical school. Rather than addressing these issues head-on, many argue that Folt’s administration focused instead on securing funding from high-profile donors and expanding the university’s brand, while sidelining the concerns of students and faculty.

This prioritization of external donors is evident in USC’s massive fundraising campaigns, which often overshadow initiatives aimed at addressing student debt, affordability, or academic freedom. USC's endowment has grown exponentially under Folt’s leadership, but student loan debt continues to be a crippling issue for many Trojans, and the concerns of adjunct faculty members remain largely ignored.

Furthermore, Folt’s administration has faced criticism for its efforts to suppress dissent on campus. For instance, student protests related to labor rights, housing issues, and calls for greater diversity on campus have been met with limited response or, at times, outright hostility. In 2022, when USC students protested the administration's handling of campus housing shortages, they were met with heightened security measures and a lack of genuine engagement from university leadership. These actions—along with Folt’s ties to the private sector, particularly her background in environmental policy and corporate leadership—have fueled perceptions that USC’s administration is more interested in protecting its brand than in creating an inclusive, participatory academic environment.

USC also exemplifies the growing disconnect between students, faculty, and administration when it comes to issues of free speech and assembly. Protests have become less frequent, as many students feel their voices will not be heard, and faculty members, particularly those in non-tenure track positions, are often too fearful of retribution to publicly criticize the administration.

The discontent with university leadership is not confined to the campus. In recent years, presidents from some of the nation's most elite institutions, including Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have faced intense scrutiny and backlash during hearings in the U.S. House of Representatives. These public hearings, aimed at addressing the growing issues of student debt, university funding, and the influence of wealthy donors on campus, have highlighted the widening disconnect between top university administrations and the communities they are supposed to serve.

During a House hearing in 2022, Lawrence Bacow of Harvard, along with MIT's President L. Rafael Reif and Penn's President Amy Gutmann, faced tough questioning from lawmakers who were deeply critical of how these institutions have handled student debt, tuition costs, and their ties to corporate interests. Bacow, in particular, faced pointed questions about Harvard's massive endowment and the university's refusal to use its resources to address skyrocketing tuition and student loan debt. Both Reif and Gutmann were grilled on how their institutions have prioritized securing donations from wealthy alumni and corporate entities over the well-being of students and faculty. The hearing exposed a troubling pattern where the presidents of these prestigious institutions seemed more concerned with maintaining their institutions' financial health than with addressing the needs of their campus communities.

Legacy admissions, a practice entrenched at many of these elite schools, also came under fire during the hearings. Critics argued that such policies perpetuate inequality, giving children of alumni—many of whom come from wealthy backgrounds—unfair advantages in the admissions process. This has contributed to the growing perception that these universities, while claiming to offer merit-based opportunities, are fundamentally shaped by privilege and corporate interests.

These public confrontations highlighted the growing frustration with university presidents who are seen as out of touch with the everyday realities facing students and faculty, as well as the increasing influence of money and corporate interests in higher education. The presidents of these universities, once seen as respected leaders, have become targets of anger and resentment, with many on Capitol Hill and on campus calling for a shift in how these institutions are governed.

These are just a few examples of elite universities where the power structure has shifted toward those who have the financial means to dictate the terms of the campus experience. As tuition costs rise and student loan debt becomes a crushing burden for many, university presidents seem more determined than ever to serve the interests of trustees and donors, rather than advocating for the people who should be their true constituents: the students, faculty, and staff who make up the heart of the academic community.

The impact of this shift has been profound. On campuses across the country, students are increasingly feeling that their voices don’t matter. Faculty members, once seen as the intellectual core of the institution, are being sidelined in favor of administrators who prioritize financial concerns over academic integrity. And staff members—many of whom are underpaid and overworked—are being pushed to the margins as well.

But it’s not just students who are feeling the heat. Faculty and staff have found their own platforms for protest increasingly under attack. At places like Yale University, where former President Peter Salovey faced criticism for neglecting the needs of faculty and for his lukewarm responses to issues like labor rights and the treatment of graduate workers, professors staged walkouts and organized petitions to voice their discontent with the administration's disregard for their well-being.

In this new era, university presidents are no longer the beloved leaders of intellectual discourse—they are the gatekeepers of corporate power, more concerned with securing funding from wealthy donors than with fostering an inclusive, open, and critical academic environment. The fallout from this shift is only growing, as campuses become hotbeds of dissent, with students, faculty, and staff increasingly questioning the direction of higher education and the people at the helm.

As the divide between administration and the campus community continues to widen, one thing is clear: the once-admired university president is now among the most hated figures on campus, seen not as a champion of academic values, but as an enforcer of an increasingly political and profit-driven agenda.

 

If you report on US colleges and universities, get to know these 19 higher education databases

by Denise-Marie Ordway, The Journalist's Resource

No matter what issue you’re covering on the higher education beat, your story will be stronger if you ground it in high-quality data. Fortunately for journalists, government agencies and academic researchers have gathered data on an array of topics and made it available online for free. You just need to know where to find it.

That’s why we created this tip sheet. It spotlights 19 higher education databases we think you ought to know about. This list is not meant to be exhaustive. We included databases that will help journalists report on some of the most common and pressing higher education issues.

Note that most of these databases are the projects of federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and National Science Foundation. We’ll update this list periodically. Please bookmark it and share it with colleagues because it’s sure to come in handy.

1. College Navigator

This searchable database, created by the National Center for Education Statistics, provides basic information on nearly 7,000 U.S. colleges and universities. Use it to look up information about an institution’s admission rate, tuition, undergraduate enrollment, academic programs, athletic programs and other characteristics. You can also compare institutions.

The National Center for Education Statistics, commonly referred to as NCES, is part of the Institute of Education Sciences at the U.S. Department of Education.

2. DataLab

Journalists can use this online platform, another NCES project, to find detailed information on various topics across K-12 education and higher education. Sift through decades of data that the NCES has collected on college costs, student demographics, student debt, faculty demographics, faculty salaries, student graduation and dropout rates, and other subjects.

DataLab’s Tables Library contains more than 8,000 data tables published by the NCES. Journalists who are comfortable working with data can use the platform’s PowerStats tool to create data visualizations and run linear and logistic regressions.

3. Data.gov

You’ll find thousands of government data sets and data-heavy reports here -- the federal government’s open data site. You can search for education data by location and government agency as well as by topic category and dataset format.

4. Campus Security Data Analysis Cutting Tool

Use this higher education database, maintained by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education, to find information on crime at U.S. colleges and universities that receive federal funding. You can look at three years of statistics for a single school or generate reports to examine trends across schools.

Crimes that institutions report annually to the federal government include murder, aggravated assault, rape, hate crimes, domestic violence, motor vehicle theft and violations of state or local liquor laws. Schools also must report arrests as well as any disciplinary action taken against students accused of certain crimes.

5. Official Cohort Default Rate Search

For student loan default rates, check out this higher education database, which is maintained by Federal Student Aid, an office of the U.S. Department of Education. You can search default rates by state, city, institution, institution type and degree program.

6. U.S. Office for Civil Rights pending cases database

This is a national database of K-12 schools, colleges and universities that are being investigated by the federal Office for Civil Rights, a division of the U.S. Department of Education that investigates discrimination complaints. Here you can find information on investigations of alleged Title IX and Title VI violations. Title IX is a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination at K-12 schools, colleges and universities that receive federal financial assistance. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin.

7. Healthy Minds Study

This research database houses data collected as part of the Healthy Minds Study, an annual survey that asks college students about their mental health and their school environment, including campus safety, peer support and mental health services. More than 850,000 people at more than 600 colleges and universities have completed the survey since its launch in 2007.

The principal investigators of the Healthy Minds Study are researchers at the University of California-Los Angeles, University of Michigan, Wayne State University and Boston University.

8. CIRCLE

Tufts University’s Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement -- commonly known as CIRCLE -- has created several online data tools journalists can use to obtain data for stories about young voters and civic engagement on college campuses. For example, its Youth Voting and Civic Engagement in America data tool allows journalists to examine the voting habits of young adults by state, county or congressional district.

9. Retraction Watch

If you’re looking into allegations of research fraud or misconduct, Retraction Watch can help. It maintains a database of retracted scientific papers that reporters can use to search for retractions connected to a specific researcher, university or research organization. There’s also a user guide. Retraction Watch’s parent organization is the nonprofit Center for Scientific Integrity.

10. Nonprofit Explorer

Use this database, created by ProPublica, to look up tax returns and Form 990 filings for almost 2 million tax-exempt organizations, including non-profit colleges and universities. Form 990 filings contain information on an organization’s annual revenue, sources of revenue, expenses, and the names and salaries of its top executives.

11. Community College Research Center

The Community College Research Center’s website offers a variety of interactive platforms that allow journalists to explore data on U.S. community colleges and their students. For example, one focuses on community college finances during the pandemic. Another focuses on dual enrollment programs, which allow high school students to enroll at local colleges to earn college credits. The Community College Research Center is located at Columbia University.

12. Minority-Serving Institutions Data Project

This project provides data on minority-serving institutions, or MSIs. Some of these colleges and universities were founded specifically to serve racial minorities -- for example, historically Black colleges and universities only served Black students for decades. Many MSIs are historically white institutions where enrollment has grown more racially and ethnically diverse over time.

13. Association of American Medical Colleges

The “Data & Reports” section of the Association of American Medical Colleges’ website offers a variety of reports and datasets on medical school funding, applicants, students, faculty and tuition. It also provides information on topics such as research lab productivity and medical students’ experiences with sexual harassment.

14. American Bar Association

The American Bar Association provides reports and spreadsheets featuring data on U.S. law schools, law school enrollment and law students’ bar passage rates in the “Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar” of its website. It also provides reports on trends related to tuition, student and faculty demographics and student-faculty ratios.

15. College Board

Go to the College Board’s website for data and reports on the SAT college-entrance exam as well as the Advanced Placement program, which provides college-level curricula and exams for use at high schools worldwide. The College Board, a nonprofit organization that administers both, collects and makes public a variety of data on AP exam scores, SAT scores, students who take the AP exam, students who take the SAT and how both programs have grown over time.

16. GI Bill Comparison Tool

Journalists can use this U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs database to compare the GI Bill benefits offered at individual trade schools, higher education institutions and employers across the U.S. The GI Bill helps U.S. military veterans and their family members pay for college or for personal expenses while training for a job.

17. Higher Education Research and Development Survey

Each year, the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics conducts a census of colleges and universities that spend at least $150,000 on research and development. The center, part of the National Science Foundation, publishes data tables and reports on the results of its Higher Education Research and Development Survey. Journalists can use them to find information on how much money institutions have spent doing research in different fields, their sources of research funding and how much schools spent on researcher salaries versus equipment, software and other expenses.

18. EdWorkingPapers

EdWorkingPapers is a searchable database of academic working papers on a variety of K-12 education and higher education topics. Anyone can read these papers for free thanks to this joint project of Brown University’s Annenberg Institute for School Reform and Stanford University’s Systems Change Advancing Learning and Equity initiative.

19. Education Resources Information Center

Commonly referred to as ERIC, the Education Resources Information Center is a searchable database of education research and information found in academic journals, books and government reports. While it’s free to use ERIC, which is sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences at the U.S. Department of Education, journalists might need subscriptions to access many journal articles and book chapters.

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

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.

Advocates Sound Alarms That Linda McMahon Will Act as “Rubber Stamp” for Trump’s Project 2025 Agenda (Student Borrower Protection Center)

February 13, 2025 | WASHINGTON, D.C. — Following today’s Senate HELP Committee’s confirmation hearing to consider Linda McMahon to serve as Secretary of Education, the Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) issued the following statement:

Statement from Aissa Canchola Bañez, Policy Director of SBPC:

“Linda McMahon’s testimony was nothing more than two hours worth of gaslighting. McMahon had the opportunity to state clearly and unequivocally that she will protect students, borrowers, and working families across the nation from the chaos that has already ensued as a result of President Trump and Elon Musk’s work to make their Project 2025 agenda the law of the land. She did not.

“When asked whether she would abide by a directive by President Trump that breaks a law, her nonanswer spoke volumes. It is clear that Linda McMahon’s blind loyalty to President Trump will guide her decision-making should she be confirmed to serve as the nation’s highest education official—and our students and communities will pay the price.

“Now more than ever, students, borrowers, and working families need an Education Secretary who will protect their interests, not the interests of private entities seeking to line their pockets off of our public education system. It is clear that Linda McMahon will not be that Education Secretary. We call on Senators to stand with students, educators, and working families across the nation and reject her nomination.”

Since the announcement of Linda McMahon’s nomination, the SBPC has consistently sounded the alarm that McMahon’s longtime loyalty to President Trump would make her a “rubber stamp” on the most harmful aspects of the Project 2025 agenda. SBPC also submitted a letter of opposition to Linda McMahon’s nomination, which was submitted into the Congressional record during the hearing.

Further Reading

SBPC letter to the Senate HELP Committee opposing Linda McMahon’s nomination: See Here

SBPC blog listing out 20 questions for HELP to ask Linda McMahon in her nomination hearing: 20 Questions for Linda McMahon After the Trump White House Blocks All Federal Agency Grants and Loans

SBPC blog outlining concerns with critical Trump cabinet nominees: Critical Trump Administration Nominees Should Raise Major Red Flags for Working Families with Student Debt

SBPC, Data for Progress, Groundwork Collaborative polling showing wide opposition to gutting student borrower protections: NEW POLL: Overwhelming, Bipartisan Majority Reject Cuts to the Student Loan Safety Net and Financial Aid Students and Families Rely On

Initial release of poll results showing voters oppose abolishing the U.S. Department of Education: New Poll Confirms: Trump’s Plan to Abolish Department of Education is Extremely Unpopular Among Voters

About Student Borrower Protection Center

Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) is a nonprofit organization focused on eliminating the burden of student debt for millions of Americans. We engage in advocacy, policymaking, and litigation strategy to rein in industry abuses, protect borrowers’ rights, and advance racial and economic justice.

Learn more at protectborrowers.org or follow SBPC on Twitter @theSBPC.

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.