U of Idaho President Seems To Temper His Cheerleading for U of Phoenix Purchase (David Halperin)

In testimony Monday before a joint committee of the Idaho legislature, University of Idaho president C. Scott Green seemed a little less committed to the deal he has relentlessly touted for more than a year and a half — for his school to buy, for $685 million, the huge for-profit University of Phoenix from private equity giant Apollo Global Management.

According to Idaho Education News, Green said the next move was Apollo’s. “We’re waiting to hear what they would like to do,” Green said.

Green’s plan has been thwarted again and again, with negative votes in the Idaho legislature, a successful court challenge by the state’s attorney general, criticism from the state treasurer, and sharp scrutiny from news outlets in the state.

The Green school deal has assumed that operation of Phoenix would bring millions in new revenue to fund his university. But it ignores that running a for-profit college, one that has repeatedly gotten in trouble with law enforcement, would be a tremendous challenge: If Green pushed to end Phoenix’s predatory practices and improve student outcomes, it probably would start losing money, because predatory practices, coupled with high prices and low spending on education, have made up the school’s secret sauce. But if Green allowed the deceptive conduct to persist, the school could face more legal peril. And, whatever route he took, Green’s school might end up assuming massive liability for student loan debt the government has cancelled based on past abuses at Phoenix.

At its peak, Phoenix was the largest for-profit college in the country and got upwards of $2 billion a year in federal student aid, while boasting dismal graduation rates and high levels of loan defaults.

Last summer, the University of Idaho and Apollo agreed to a one-year extension of their purchase deal. That arrangement expires June 10. Meanwhile Apollo has the right to talk with other potential buyers.

Apollo already has sent Idaho $5 million to cover the school’s high-priced legal and consulting fees in connection with the deal, and it has agreed to pay up to $20 million to Idaho if the deal falls through.

Green told the legislature that $20 million would cover his school’s costs with perhaps $2 to $3 to spare. “I think we’re well-protected,” he boasted.

Kind of. Green, whose background is in corporate management and finance, could potentially walk away without losing money for the school. But he has tied up state university, executive, legislative, and judicial resources for many hundreds of hours jousting over an effort that would keep alive a predatory school that has buried thousands of graduates in debt they can’t afford to repay, while wasting billions in federal taxpayer dollars, when that time could have been focused on the real challenges of state higher education.

If Idaho can’t work out a deal, Apollo may run out of options to dump the school, and this taxpayer-funded multi-billion dollar disgrace may at last be put down.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Essays in the Transformation of Higher Education (Dan Morris and Harry Targ)

From Upton Sinclair's 'Goose Step' to the Neoliberal University (lulu.com)

Table of Contents
Introduction
Chapter One: Macro and Micro Analyses of Higher Education
Chapter Two: Discourses On Ideology
Chapter Three: Branding
Chapter Four: What Do Universities Do?
Chapter Five: Universities and War:
Conclusion
Appendix

Introduction

In the following pages, you are going to find a lot of specific information about what is happening at one major public research university, but we believe what is happening at Purdue is analogous to a canary in a coal mine. We believe that Purdue under Mitch Daniels, a former George Walker Bush administrator and Governor of Indiana, is becoming a high profile and influential spokesperson for the transformation of public higher education in the 21st century in directions that we find dangerous and that go against how we value higher education. We realize that, while we address extensively institutional changes and policies at Purdue, Indiana’s Land Grant University, our interest is in using this case study to illustrate larger patterns and issues that should be of concern to readers who care about the future of higher education in a broader sense.

Harry Targ's pieces do tend towards a wider-angle perspective than do those by Dan Morris, although both of us rely on our "boots on the ground" level understanding of Purdue to counteract and contest official media versions of what is happening at Purdue. We write at a moment when there is something of a "media desert" in terms of local news coverage of higher education in small markets such as Lafayette, Indiana. We have both tried to work to rectify the "media desert" landscape in our community by contributing to the Lafayette Independent, an electronic newsletter. We appreciate efforts by local journalists such as Dave Bangert and the student staff of the Purdue Exponent to offer coverage of the university in ways that are more substantial, and, often, more critical, than what one finds in the area's only mainstream newspaper, the Journal and Courier, and main local TV news source, and the Purdue NPR radio station, whose ownership in the last year has been mysteriously transferred to an Indianapolis corporation. Paradoxically the richest data for many of the essays below come from the official daily public relations newsletter from Purdue called Purdue Today. This public relations source celebrates Purdue’s latest connections with multinational corporations, the military, and state politics, and provides links to editorials published by Purdue’s President and other officials in the national press. Ironically, oftentimes what Purdue celebrates becomes the data for our more analytical and discursive writings.

Like alternative media sources, we see this book as another intervention in offering an alternative view of what is happening at our campus, but we also write with the hope that readers can apply the readings we bring to Purdue to begin conversations about the promise and problems of contemporary higher education on campuses. The authors wish to praise and encourage further research and activism around the transformations of higher education in general. We identify with what some scholars have referred to as Critical University Studies (CUS). The essays below, we believe, are part of this emerging tradition of critical and self-reflective scholarship.

The authors also wish to identify at least three major elements of the transformation of higher education. First, Purdue, like many other universities, is once again pursuing research contracts with huge corporations, and perhaps most importantly, the Department of Defense. As essays below suggest, Purdue research is increasingly justified as serving the interests of United States “national security.” Often this is conceptualized as helping the United States respond to “the Chinese threat,” rarely identifying what exactly is the threat, or considering the possibility that contributing to a new arms race with a perceived adversary may increase, rather than reduce, the possibility for conflict between nations.

Second, the work below and other writings in CUS, highlight the purposive transformation of the content of higher education. Universities are moving resources away from the liberal arts, creating new programs in “artificial intelligence” and “data science,” and in response to political pressures are diminishing programs that emphasize interdisciplinarity, intersectionality, and the structural problems of race, class, gender, and sexual preference in history and contemporary society. Essays below on “civics literacy” suggest that leading administrators at Purdue, while refusing to defend its universally praised Writing Lab after it was ridiculed on Fox News for its recommendation that student writers select gender-neutral terms such as postal worker when writing about occupations, seek to avoid the controversaries around Critical Race Theory by requiring all students to study in some fashion “civics literacy.” President Daniels has made it clear that the study of civics literacy will illustrate the “vitality” of US political institutions (as opposed to over-emphasizing the slaughter of the original inhabitants of the North American continent or the history of slavery and white supremacy).

Third, the essays below do not dwell enough on the transformation of the university as a workplace. While there have been attacks for years on the tenure system, a system of job security which was initially designed to protect faculty from external political pressures, recent additions to the transformations of the university as a work site should be noted.

Adjunctification is a term that refers to the qualitative increase in the hiring of various forms of part time instructors: full-time instructors for a set time period, instructors to teach less than a full complement of courses, and instructors with various arrangements that limit their work life, their ability to do research and prepare for their class time, and their time to serve the many needs of students. The fundamental trend in higher education is to “cheapen” and make insecure instructors, ultimately to destroy the job security that comes with academic tenure. In many cases this impacts negatively on the quality of the educational experience. (In colleges and universities in general about 70 percent of classes now are taught by instructors who are not tenure-line faculty).

And finally, every effort is made by universities to limit and derail the workplace concerns of non-teaching staff, particularly opposing their right to form unions.

One positive development from all of this-destroying the tenure system and job security, adjunctification, increased exploitation of graduate students, and finally restricting the rights and the wages and benefits of staff has been the rise of labor militancy. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and various unions such as the United Auto Workers (UAW) and the United Electrical Workers (UE) with a history of militancy have been organizing graduate students and staff.

Finally, the authors acknowledge that in the months after we completed our manuscript, Purdue administrators and trustees have announced a series of initiatives without an appropriate level of input from university stakeholders and the wider Lafayette area community:

1. Purdue is building a housing complex near the Discovery Park part of campus to attract higher income earning technologists to relocate in West Lafayette. To encourage new high-income residents, the West Lafayette city government has authorized $5,000 cash incentives for any purchasers of these new housing units adjacent to Purdue. Such offers are not available to lower income earners or students.

2. To deal with record enrollments, Purdue has purchased a privately constructed apartment complex across from campus at a price well more than the cost of its construction.

3. Purdue officials have expanded partnerships with Saab, Rolls Royce, the Raytheon Corporation, one of the world’s five largest military contractors, and undertaken a controversial business mission with the Indiana governor to Taiwan to pursue research and production of semi-conductors, in part to respond to what Purdue officials have described as a ”Chinese threat” to national security in the United States.

4.The College of Liberal Arts has announced it will be partnering with the College of Science to develop a new interdisciplinary degree program in artificial intelligence. CLA calls its “new field” of interest, “sociogenomics.”

5. Purdue received an award recognizing its “excellence in counterintelligence,” one of only four such award recipients in 2022. Purdue joins those few universities which protect “sensitive national information from foreign adversaries.” The award announced in Purdue Today, August 24, 2022, noted that the university continues to work with the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) and the FBI.

In short, the transformation of Indiana’s Land Grant university continues at a rapid pace. And while the essays below concentrate on the developments and forces leading to these changes, the broader point of this collection of essays is to suggest that higher education in the twenty-first century is changing in a rapid and largely deleterious way. The appended essay by Carl Davidson reflects a similar critique of the university during the height of the Cold War. What we are witnessing today is a revitalization of that trend.

For those who value the university as a site for informing students about the world and debating the value of changes occurring in it, the developments highlighted in these essays are a warning. And for faculty and students alike the antidote to the militarization of the university, the transformation of the curricula, and the disempowering of those who work in universities is organizing against those elements of change that are antithetical to the educational process.

And More:

“The Krach Institute for Tech Diplomacy at Purdue has created a category of its own. As part of the nation’s leading national security university, it is rapidly becoming the world’s premier institution focused on Tech Statecraft, a new model of diplomacy bridging the gap between technology experts, government officials and policymakers, and business leaders to ensure tomorrow’s tech secures our freedoms,” said (Daniel) Kurtenbach. ‘I’m excited to contribute to the Krach Institute’s already-impressive momentum by enhancing and building its innovative partnerships and relationships to achieve our shared vision of a future that prizes individual freedom through trusted technology.’ ”

https://www.citybiz.co/article/378157/krach-institute-for-tech-diplomacy-at-purdue-names-daniel-kurtenbach-as-chief-growth-officer/

Homepage - Tech Statecraft (techdiplomacy.org)

How University of Arizona Global Campus’ Online Recruitment Ads Drain Its Finances (Jeremy Bauer-Wolf)

In 2020, the University of Arizona acquired Ashford University, an online for-profit college that a California court later found guilty of having deceived students about job prospects, transfer opportunities, and degree costs.

Feeling pressured to better compete in the online education market — especially as Arizona State University broadened its virtual options — University of Arizona leaders recast Ashford as the University of Arizona Global Campus, or UAGC.

Administrators pledged to rehabilitate UAGC and abandon the exploitation that landed the former Ashford in legal hot water. UAGC, as its president said in 2022, is “well-positioned to provide adult learners with affordable college credentials that can better prepare them for careers in a rapidly evolving global economy.”

But beneath the rebranding efforts, problems remain. The University of Arizona has spent massively on marketing UAGC, as an audit that consultancy EY conducted last year revealed, a hallmark tactic of predatory for-profit institutions that dress up their junk degrees as prestigious offerings.

UAGC runs extensive and expensive ad campaigns on Google and Facebook, yet fewer than 1% of those reached enroll. This amounts to the university paying $11,521 for every student enrolled from those campaigns, the audit shows.

For context, this is almost as much as the University of Arizona’s in-state tuition and fees per student in the 2023-24 academic year, which federal data estimates to be about $13,000.

And one higher ed consultancy, RNL, found that in 2022, the median cost of recruiting an undergraduate student, minus personnel expenses, was only $1,652 for a four-year private college and $282 at a four-year public institution (though proponents of online education argue this is comparing apples to oranges).

But ultimately, UAGC’s investment has not improved enrollment. It continues to bleed, as it did in Ashford’s later days, dropping from about 107,000 students in fiscal year 2015 to 51,000 in fiscal year 2023.

Criticism from some of the University of Arizona’s faculty has also erupted. In the waning days of 2024, Nolan Cabrera, a professor at the university’s Center for the Study of Higher Education, wrote a public warning to students, urging them not to enroll in UAGC.

Cabrera told New America in a later interview he went public with his criticisms to protect students — and the University of Arizona’s reputation. UAGC, he said, is only hurting students with poor-quality programs, draining resources and sullying its standing as a top-class, R1 institution.

Blake Naughton, UAGC’s vice provost for academic affairs, teaching, and learning for online initiatives said in an emailed statement that “accreditors, government agencies, and other external reviewers” recognize “UAGC’s commitment to the quality of its degree programs.”

“UAGC has developed an innovative model that is validated through reaffirmations of quality by UAGC’s institutional and programmatic accreditors, which includes Quality Matters certification representing the gold standard in online courses, and enthusiastic partnerships with businesses and military employers,” Naughton said. “Further, UAGC faculty are leaders in the scholarship of online teaching and learning, regularly publishing and presenting on the efficacy of its ‘quality at scale’ model.”

The Creation of UAGC

Those inside and out of University of Arizona — state officials, faculty, college students and their advocates — were immediately skeptical of UAGC’s potential quality and value when the university acquired Ashford in 2020. The deal was a complex one that involved the University of Arizona creating a new nonprofit entity, which bought Ashford for $1. In return, UAGC would provide almost 20% of annual tuition revenue to Ashford’s former parent company, Zovio, though that arrangement later fell apart in 2022.

Before the acquisition, Ashford followed the blueprint of one of the most notorious for-profit colleges in American history: the University of Phoenix. Andrew S. Clark — an executive who contributed to the University of Phoenix’s rise — and the company he later worked for, Bridgepoint, replicated deceptive practices around credit transfers, financial aid, and recruitment at Ashford.

In 2017, California’s attorney general alleged Ashford misled prospective students about their chances of securing financial aid, the cost of attendance, the transferability of credits, and how well its programs prepared them for certain careers. The attorney general also accused it of deceiving investors and the public by exaggerating the percentage of working alumni who said their degree helped them in their current jobs.

This complaint was still unresolved by the time University of Arizona acquired it in 2020.

In 2022, the court ruled against Ashford and Zovio. The judge in the case was persuaded by estimates that Zovio made roughly 1.2 million misleading calls to potential students from March 2009 to April 2020.

The University of Arizona painstakingly crafted a public relations campaign to try to cleave UAGC’s reputation from Ashford’s. This was despite widespread concerns among its faculty and staff about Ashford, Cabrera said in an interview.

The administration never truly responded to those fears that Ashford was still peddling poor-quality education, he said. In fact, negotiations surrounding Ashford were so secretive that University of Arizona representatives who were involved with them signed non-disclosure agreements, obfuscating details of the deal, Cabrera argued. (The University of Arizona has said because Zovio was a publicly traded company, the institution “was required to undertake its work on a confidential and ‘need to know’ basis.”)

“You know the old adage, ‘you get what you pay for’?,” Cabrera said, referring to the $1 price tag of the acquisition. “That should tell you everything you need to know.”

UAGC has maintained an anemic graduation rate, only reaching 15% to 20% after the University of Arizona’s acquisition, according to the audit. The University of Arizona’s graduation rate stands between 60% to 70%. The retention rate of full-time students has also only improved modestly, from 24% in 2019 to 30% in 2022, according to federal data.

Mitch Zak, a University of Arizona spokesperson, said in a statement that it and UAGC have different academic models, thus their graduation rates aren’t comparable.

“The majority of UAGC students are working adults and military service members with varying priorities and responsibilities, which results in their taking fewer courses per year than traditional U of A students,” Zak said. “Non-traditional online students nationwide are not expected to graduate in the same timeframe as traditional university undergraduates.”

Recent news reports have also detailed how, like Ashford’s graduates, some UAGC students have said they can’t find sound jobs after leaving and alleged that the institution misled them about the value and cost of their degrees.

Cabrera said the University of Arizona’s leaders have not prioritized improving student outcomes, but rather an online education arms race and particularly beating out Arizona State, reflecting the longstanding rivalry between the two most prominent public universities in the state.

Cabrera said the two institutions are in constant competition — in public college rankings, like U.S. News & World Report’s, in enrolling more students, and other peripheral aspects of their academics, such as who employs more Nobel Prize laureates.

But if the University of Arizona’s leadership was so worried about its reputation, it shouldn’t have scooped up Ashford, Cabrera argued. Its association with Ashford and its shoddy education demeans the value of a University of Arizona degree, too, he said.

Zak pushed back against Cabrera’s allegation, saying that “priority is to ensure that UAGC is meeting the needs of its students, most of whom could not access traditional higher education.”

He also separately in his statement criticized Cabrera, saying the professor is not an expert in online education and did not reach out to UAGC leaders or faculty “to learn more about the differences between the U of A and UAGC as well as the complexities associated with providing access to higher education to working professionals.”

Major Marketing Costs

Amid this firestorm, UAGC’s enrollments continue to slip.

Zak argued this decline “was expected and planned for during the transitional period” as the institution works to integrate the former Ashford into the University of Arizona. He said UAGC is trying to lift enrollment, including through programs that help stopped out students return to college.

Still, the enrollment downturn raises questions in particular about the efficiency of its marketing efforts.

While the analysis doesn’t reveal the full extent of UAGC’s marketing splurge, it likely devotes hundreds of millions of dollars to it, based on figures in the EY audit. A similar institution to UAGC, the University of Maryland Global Campus, also dropped $500 million on just two six-year advertising contracts, according to a separate audit.

UAGC is investing significantly in lead generation, a strategy colleges have tried for more than a decade. They pay for advertisements to appear on webpages, particularly social media platforms, that typically summarize a program and also try to entice prospective students to click a new link for more information.

That ad takes prospects to a separate webpage, where they can fill in their name and other information, becoming a “lead” that a college can try to convince them to enroll.

Yet UAGC’s use of lead generation has been astonishingly fruitless, the audit shows.

Fewer than 1% of students reached through UAGC’s top five paid marketing sources, including Google and Facebook, actually enroll. The numbers concerning Facebook are particularly bleak — only 0.5% of prospective students end up enrolling at UAGC after clicking an advertisement on the platform. The auditor said this means it effectively costs the university more than $34,000 in marketing dollars just for one person to enroll from Facebook.

Even UAGC’s most successful lead generation source — Google search ads — converted just 3% of prospects, with each enrollment costing more than $7,500.

These figures are even more staggering considering UAGC pays to find 85% of its prospects, according to the audit. By contrast, Arizona Online — the university’s self-created online program, which still operates, in parallel to UAGC — buys just 50% of its student leads.

Zak said that UAGC has since “refined” its marketing to “prioritize efficiency and effectiveness,” but did not go into greater detail.

“UAGC has implemented a targeted approach in alignment with its mission of serving non-traditional learners,” Zak said. “UAGC is focused on retention and success and focuses on students who are most likely to benefit from a flexible and supportive learning environment. UAGC leverages data analytics, audience segmentation, and advanced tracking mechanisms to help improve conversion rates and reduce marketing costs.”

He later said that UAGC serves nontraditional students like working adults, military members and first-generation college attendees.

“Reaching those students in a competitive marketplace requires a different approach than traditional four-year universities,” Zak said.

The University of Arizona has faced budget problems broadly and last year said it had a $177 million budget deficit, which it has since reduced significantly.

But for all the university’s publicity efforts around UAGC, prospective students recognize Arizona Online as part of the institution’s brand, more so than UAGC, the audit said. Maintaining both platforms has actually spurred “market confusion,” according to the audit.

To remedy this, the University of Arizona has angled to integrate UAGC and Arizona Online, and Zak pointed to a university statement last year that said the audit findings validate this merger.

Still, this “confusion” underscores broader marketing challenges, like relying heavily on lead generation, a strategy UAGC has leaned into despite the fact that experts have said it’s inefficient to boost enrollment.

In part, that’s because institutions don’t recognize that students won’t make life-altering choices, like where to attend college, based on what’s essentially a pop-up ad, two marketing experts wrote in a 2022 essay.

“Prospective students prudently take their time researching your programs’ offerings in addition to many others,’” they wrote. “They are not naïve, impatient or easily persuaded by glitzy ads and copy. They spend many months researching and deliberating.”

Worse, lead generation can be used for nefarious or even predatory recruitment efforts. Some lead generation companies, for instance, have caught consequences from the Federal Trade Commission, particularly those that target current and former military members.

What To Do Now?

Thus far, the University of Arizona Global Campus is a failed experiment, Cabrera said. He was inspired to publish his concerns about UAGC publicly after students enrolled in its programs began to reach out to him.

Students were distressed. They told him in emails and direct messages on social media that UAGC faculty in education programs couldn’t guide them properly. He said he lost count of how many students contacted him — he estimated more than 20 over an 18-month period.

“For all the political bickering, real students are getting hurt, real students getting harmed here,” Cabrera said. “They’re making a bet, but students are getting hurt in the process.”

The University of Arizona declined to comment on the UAGC students who contacted Cabrera. UAGC faculty later wrote a public rebuttal to Cabrera, arguing his piece was based on his “rather than on facts and thus lacked the academic rigor of factual data from credible sources.”

But the UAGC faculty piece did not refute specifically any data Cabrera cited, including numbers from the EY audit.

In Zak’s emailed statement, he said UAGC students “have access to academic support teams, career services, student access and wellness support teams, and a combination of tools, technology, and guidance to help them progress.”

Cabrera remains unconvinced.

He said the University of Arizona’s leaders have not fulfilled their promise to purge the educational sins of Ashford. The reality is that enrollment continues to plummet, while UAGC’s exorbitant spending on lead generation, with little return, highlights a systemic issue: UAGC, Cabrera said, has seemingly prioritized its push for new students over reforming Ashford’s remnants, which is still making headlines.

This month, the U.S. Department of Education announced it would cancel $4.5 billion in loans for 261,000 students who attended Ashford. And last year, the Education Department discharged $72 million in loan obligations for more than 2,300 former Ashford students.

In light of some of the continued problems, the University of Arizona should reassess its fundamentals of online education. It should prioritize meeting the core principles of academic quality and comprehensive student support over marketing its new venture. A stronger focus on student needs would drive more meaningful outcomes and enhance the university’s reputation in the online education space.

As Cabrera suggested, without a realignment of priorities, UAGC risks being an expensive endeavor with little impact. Its reliance on extensive marketing campaigns, like flashy Facebook ads, may eventually draw attention but will struggle to make up for the gaps in delivering long-term value to students.

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

U.S. Department of Education's Trump Appointees and America First Agenda

The U.S. Department of Education has announced a team of senior-level political appointees who will support the implementation of President Trump’s America First agenda.  

The Trump Administration, by Executive Order, has already required colleges and universities to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion measures and schools are scrambling to be compliant with this new federal policy. New policies may also affect grants from the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health.

Notable actions the Department of Education has already taken include: 

• Dissolution of the Department’s Diversity & Inclusion Council, effective immediately;
  • Background:The Diversity & Inclusion Council was established following Executive Order 13583 under then - President Obama. President Trump has rescinded the Executive Orders that guide the Council and issued a new Executive Order, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” that terminates groups like the Diversity & Inclusion Council. DEI documents issued and related actions taken by the Council have been withdrawn.
• Dissolution of the Employee Engagement Diversity Equity Inclusion Accessibility Council (EEDIAC) within the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), effective immediately and pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing”;
• Cancellation of ongoing DEI training and service contracts which total over $2.6 million;
• Withdrawal of the Department’s Equity Action Plan;
• Placement of career Department staff tasked with implementing the previous administration’s DEI initiatives on paid administrative leave; and
• Identification for removal of over 200 web pages from the Department’s website that housed DEI resources and encouraged schools and institutions of higher education to promote or endorse harmful ideological programs.

At least four appointees to the Department of Education, as well as including incoming Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, have worked at the America First Policy Institute (AFPI). AFPI's higher education proposals are posted here and noted at the bottom of this article. AFPI has been accused of using dark money to prevent student loan forgiveness and its rhetoric clearly advances this agenda.

Rachel Oglesby – Chief of Staff

Rachel Oglesby most recently served as America First Policy Institute's Chief State Action Officer & Director, Center for the American Worker. In this role, she worked to advance policies that promote worker freedom, create opportunities outside of a four-year college degree, and provide workers with the necessary skills to succeed in the modern economy, as well as leading all of AFPI’s state policy development and advocacy work. She previously worked as Chief of Policy and Deputy Chief of Staff for Governor Kristi Noem in South Dakota, overseeing the implementation of the Governor’s pro-freedom agenda across all policy areas and state government agencies. Oglesby holds a master’s degree in public policy from George Mason University and earned her bachelor’s degree in philosophy from Wake Forest University. 

Jonathan Pidluzny – Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Programs 

Jonathan Pidluzny most recently served as Director of the Higher Education Reform Initiative at the America First Policy Institute. Prior to that, he was Vice President of Academic Affairs at the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, where his work focused on academic freedom and general education. Jonathan began his career in higher education teaching political science at Morehead State University, where he was an associate professor, program coordinator, and faculty regent from 2017-2019. He received his Ph.D from Boston College and holds a bachelor’s degree and master’s degree from the University of Alberta. 

Chase Forrester – Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations 

Virginia “Chase” Forrester most recently served as the Chief Events Officer at America First Policy Institute, where she oversaw the planning and execution of 80+ high-profile events annually for AFPI’s 22 policy centers, featuring former Cabinet Officials and other distinguished speakers. Chase previously served as Operations Manager on the Trump-Pence 2020 presidential campaign, where she spearheaded all event operations for the Vice President of the United States and the Second Family. Chase worked for the National Republican Senatorial Committee during the Senate run-off races in Georgia and as a fundraiser for Members of Congress. Chase graduated from Clemson University with a bachelor’s degree in political science and a double-minor in Spanish and legal studies.

Steve Warzoha – White House Liaison

Steve Warzoha joins the U.S. Department of Education after most recently serving on the Trump-Vance Transition Team. A native of Greenwich, CT, he is a former local legislator who served on the Education Committee and as Vice Chairman of both the Budget Overview and Transportation Committees. He is also an elected leader of the Greenwich Republican Town Committee. Steve has run and served in senior positions on numerous local, state, and federal campaigns. Steve comes from a family of educators and public servants and is a proud product of Greenwich Public Schools and an Eagle Scout. 

Tom Wheeler – Principal Deputy General Counsel 

Tom Wheeler’s prior federal service includes as the Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, a Senior Advisor to the White House Federal Commission on School Safety, and as a Senior Advisor/Counsel to the Secretary of Education. He has also been asked to serve on many Boards and Commissions, including as Chair of the Hate Crimes Sub-Committee for the Federal Violent Crime Reduction Task Force, a member of the Department of Justice’s Regulatory Reform Task Force, and as an advisor to the White House Coronavirus Task Force, where he worked with the CDC and HHS to develop guidelines for the safe reopening of schools and guidelines for law enforcement and jails/prisons. Prior to rejoining the U.S. Department of Education, Tom was a partner at an AM-100 law firm, where he represented federal, state, and local public entities including educational institutions and law enforcement agencies in regulatory, administrative, trial, and appellate matters in local, state and federal venues. He is a frequent author and speaker in the areas of civil rights, free speech, and Constitutional issues, improving law enforcement, and school safety. 

Craig Trainor – Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office for Civil Rights 

Craig Trainor most recently served as Senior Special Counsel with the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary under Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), where Mr. Trainor investigated and conducted oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice, including its Civil Rights Division, the FBI, the Biden-Harris White House, and the Intelligence Community for civil rights and liberties abuses. He also worked as primary counsel on the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government’s investigation into the suppression of free speech and antisemitic harassment on college and university campuses, resulting in the House passing the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023. Previously, he served as Senior Litigation Counsel with the America First Policy Institute under former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, Of Counsel with the Fairness Center, and had his own civil rights and criminal defense law practice in New York City for over a decade. Upon graduating from the Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, he clerked for Chief Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. Mr. Trainor is admitted to practice law in the state of New York, the U.S. District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Madi Biedermann – Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Communications and Outreach 

Madi Biedermann is an experienced education policy and communications professional with experience spanning both federal and state government and policy advocacy organizations. She most recently worked as the Chief Operating Officer at P2 Public Affairs. Prior to that, she served as an Assistant Secretary of Education for Governor Glenn Youngkin and worked as a Special Assistant and Presidential Management Fellow at the Office of Management and Budget in the first Trump Administration. Madi received her bachelor’s degree and master of public administration from the University of Southern California. 

Candice Jackson – Deputy General Counsel 

Candice Jackson returns to the U.S. Department of Education to serve as Deputy General Counsel. Candice served in the first Trump Administration as Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, and Deputy General Counsel, from 2017-2021. For the last few years, Candice has practiced law in Washington State and California and consulted with groups and individuals challenging the harmful effects of the concept of "gender identity" in laws and policies in schools, employment, and public accommodations. Candice is mom to girl-boy twins Madelyn and Zachary, age 11. 

Joshua Kleinfeld – Deputy General Counsel 

Joshua Kleinfeld is the Allison & Dorothy Rouse Professor of Law and Director of the Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State at George Mason University’s Scalia School of Law. He writes and teaches about constitutional law, criminal law, and statutory interpretation, focusing in all fields on whether democratic ideals are realized in governmental practice. As a scholar and public intellectual, he has published work in the Harvard, Stanford, and University of Chicago Law Reviews, among other venues. As a practicing lawyer, he has clerked on the D.C. Circuit, Fourth Circuit, and Supreme Court of Israel, represented major corporations accused of billion-dollar wrongdoing, and, on a pro bono basis, represented children accused of homicide. As an academic, he was a tenured full professor at Northwestern Law School before lateraling to Scalia Law School. He holds a J.D. in law from Yale Law School, a Ph.D. in philosophy from the Goethe University of Frankfurt, and a B.A. in philosophy from Yale College. 

Hannah Ruth Earl – Director, Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

Hannah Ruth Earl is the former executive director of America’s Future, where she cultivated communities of freedom-minded young professionals and local leaders. She previously co-produced award-winning feature films as director of talent and creative development at the Moving Picture Institute. A native of Tennessee, she holds a master of arts in religion from Yale Divinity School.

AFPI Reform Priorities

AFPI's higher education priorities are to:

• Reform America’s Dysfunctional Higher Education Accreditation System

• Rethink Public Financing of Postsecondary Study to Encourage Competition and Accountability

• Open New Pathways to Family-Sustaining Careers

• Combat the Politicization of Higher Education and Encourage Viewpoint Diversity on U.S. Campuses

• Protect Students’ and Professors’ First Amendment Rights

 Related links:

Trump's Education Department dismantles DEI measures, suspends staff (USA Today) 

California State University changes 'illegal' program that excluded White men (Fox News)

America First Policy Institute Team

America First Policy Initiatives

Frances Perkins, Secretary if Labor (Friday's Labor Folklore)

View and share as a webpage. Friday's Labor Folklore

Thank you Frances Perkins! First Woman Cabinet Secretary Longest-serving Secretary of Labor Key Architect of the New Deal

"I came to Washington to work for God, FDR and the millions of forgotten, plain common working men."

Born in Boston, Mass. (1880) and graduated high school in Worcester. Earned a bachelor's degree in chemistry and physics from Mount Holyoke College where she became involved in progressive politics and the suffrage movement. Held a variety of teaching positions and volunteered at settlement houses, including Hull House in Chicago, where she worked with Jane Addams. She moved to Philadelphia where she worked as a social worker and enrolled in the Wharton School where she studied economics. Moved to Greenwich Village, where she attended Columbia University, earning a master's degree in 1910. She became active in the suffrage movement, speaking on street corners and attending protests.

Achieved statewide prominence as head of the New York office of the National Consumers League where she lobbied for better working hours and conditions. As a professor of sociology she taught classes at Adelphi College. She witnessed the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, a pivotal event in her life. As the appointed head of the Committee on Safety of the City of New York she promoted fire safety; in 1912 she was instrumental in getting the New York legislature to pass a "54-hour bill" capping the number of hours women and children could work.

She married Paul Caldwell Wilson, an economist and was insistent on keeping her birth name. Gave birth to a daughter, Susanna, in 1916. Throughout the remainder of her marriage her husband would be institutionalized frequently for mental illness. She supported herself and raised their young daughter alone. In 1929 New York governor Franklin Roosevelt appointed her as the state's Industrial Commissioner where she championed the minimum wage, unemployment insurance, workplace health and safety and an end to child labor. In 1933 President Franklin Roosevelt appointed her the Secretary of Labor becoming the first woman to hold a cabinet position in the United States. She helped shape the New Deal, working to design and implement the Social Security Act of 1935.

She helped millions of people get back to work during the Great Depression and she fought for the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively. Was the longest-serving Secretary of Labor (12 years) whose successful programs were supported consistently by President Roosevelt. Following her career in government service she remained active as a teacher and lecturer until her death in 1965, at age 85. In 1980 President Jimmy Carter named the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Labor as "The Frances Perkins Department of Labor Building." On Dec. 16, 2024 President Joe Biden designated the Frances Perkins Homestead National Historic Landmark in Newcastle, Maine. President Biden's designation was issued as he directed in Executive Order 14121, Recognizing and Honoring Women's History (March 27, 2024).

In 1933, Roosevelt summoned Perkins to ask her to join his cabinet. Perkins presented Roosevelt with a long list of labor programs for which she would fight, from Social Security to minimum wage. "Nothing like this has ever been done in the United States before," she told Roosevelt. "You know that, don’t you?" (Wikipedia)

from the play I Am Not Content an Hour with Frances Perkins by Stephen LaRocque ------------------------ A staged reading by Kathie Mack (video : 1.51 min.)

Thank You Frances Perkins (song : 2.21 min.) by Austin Moffa

Friday's Labor Folklore Saul Schniderman, Editor forward to a friend

Sources from which I summarized, paraphrased or quoted directly: Wikipedia, "President Biden designates Frances Perkins homestead as new national monument," press release, 12/16/2022; Executive Order 14121, Section 3a report, Dec. 2024; Hall of Secretaries, U. S. Dept. of Labor.