The Haves and Have Nots of Higher Education and Student Loan Debt

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). This bold step is ostensibly designed to streamline the management of federal student loans, but it is also seen by many as the first move in a larger effort to dismantle the Department of Education entirely, reduce federal oversight, and privatize key aspects of the student loan system. Alongside this plan, there are growing discussions about eliminating essential borrower protections, including programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF), Pay As You Earn (PAYE), Income-Contingent Repayment (ICR), and the Borrower Defense to Repayment program, all of which have offered critical relief to millions of students. Additionally, the rollback of Gainful Employment regulations—which were designed to protect students from predatory for-profit institutions—further signals a shift toward private sector control, which has historically benefited lenders over borrowers.

---

The Alleged 'Rescue' of the Loan Portfolio

The White House has framed the transfer of the student loan portfolio to the SBA as a necessary step to relieve the Department of Education (ED) of a heavy burden, positioning the SBA 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

The SBA, traditionally tasked with managing small business loans, lacks the expertise to effectively manage the complex structure of federal student loans, which include income-driven repayment plans, loan forgiveness programs, and various protections for struggling borrowers. With the agency also facing significant staffing cuts, it’s highly unlikely that the SBA will be able to competently handle such a vast and complicated portfolio—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? Some insiders suggest that the failure of the SBA to properly manage the student loan portfolio could be deliberate—creating a crisis that would justify selling off the portfolio to private companies, thus privatizing the entire system.

---

The Planned Failure: A Strategy for Privatization?

According to several former senior officials within the Department of Education, the transfer of the student loan portfolio to the SBA could be a calculated move to destabilize the federal loan system. The apparent failure of the SBA to manage the loans would then serve as a justification for transferring the loans to the private sector. This mirrors tactics used in other sectors where privatization was pursued under the guise of government inefficiency. The fear is that this move could ultimately lead to for-profit companies taking over the loan system, with borrowers facing higher interest rates, stricter repayment terms, and the loss of essential protections.

---

Who Stands to Gain from Privatizing Student Loans?

The shift toward privatizing student loans stands to benefit several key players in the financial and educational sectors, particularly for-profit companies and private lenders who have long pushed for deregulation and profit-driven management of student debt. The primary beneficiaries would include:

1. Private Lenders and Financial Institutions: Banks, investment firms, and loan servicing companies are the most obvious winners in a privatized student loan system. With the federal government stepping back, these entities would gain control over the $1.8 trillion portfolio, allowing them to set higher interest rates, stricter repayment terms, and impose fees on borrowers. This would turn student loans into even more lucrative financial products for the private sector.

2. For-Profit Educational Institutions: For-profit colleges, which often rely on student loans to fund their operations, could also stand to gain. These institutions—many of which have faced significant scrutiny for high tuition costs and poor student outcomes—would benefit from a less regulated environment. Without the Gainful Employment regulations, which were designed to hold these institutions accountable for their job placement and earnings data, they would face fewer restrictions on their recruitment practices and financial dealings, potentially allowing them to continue enrolling students in expensive, low-quality programs.

3. Servicers and Debt Collection Agencies: Loan servicers and debt collection agencies that would likely take over the management of student loans in a privatized system stand to profit greatly. By controlling the servicing of student loans, these companies can increase their fees and aggressively pursue defaulting borrowers, further exacerbating the financial hardship for many students. These entities would benefit from a less regulated environment where the focus would shift toward profitability, often at the expense of borrowers.

4. Political Donors and Lobbyists: Financial institutions and for-profit education providers have historically been major political donors and lobbyists, particularly to policymakers who have pushed for deregulation of student loan systems. Privatization could provide these stakeholders with the opportunity to consolidate their power over the student loan industry, influencing policy decisions in their favor and ensuring continued access to profits from the student loan market.

---

A History of Struggles: Lack of Oversight and Privatization Since the 1980s

The idea of privatizing student loans and dismantling federal oversight is not entirely new. In fact, the U.S. student loan system has been struggling for decades due to a lack of oversight and a trend toward privatization dating back to the 1980s. The federal government’s role as a guarantor of student loans—starting with the creation of the Guaranteed Student Loan (GSL) program in the 1960s—was eventually scaled back, leading to a rise in private student loans. As private lenders entered the student loan market, particularly during the 1990s and 2000s, the system became increasingly unregulated, leading to rising debt levels and predatory lending practices.

By the 1980s, the federal government’s reliance on private institutions to handle student loans led to a lack of transparency, accountability, and consumer protections. In particular, private lenders began to offer loans with fewer safeguards, contributing to the explosion of student loan debt and the proliferation of for-profit colleges that preyed on vulnerable students. The government, despite its involvement, increasingly stepped back from actively managing the loan system, leaving students with limited options for relief when they fell into financial distress.

---

The Consequences of Deregulation: Elite Colleges and the Growing Educated Underclass

One of the most significant byproducts of the shift toward privatization and deregulation in U.S. higher education has been the growth of a growing educated underclass. While elite colleges have continued to thrive, expanding their endowments and increasing their tuition fees, a large segment of the population is left with a degree and overwhelming debt that fails to deliver on its promise. Over the past several decades, prestigious universities have only gotten wealthier, with many now sitting on endowments of billions of dollars. These institutions benefit from the student loan system, which allows students to take on more debt to afford high tuition costs, all while their wealthy alumni networks and expansive endowments only grow larger.

At the same time, a growing number of students from lower-income backgrounds—many of whom attend for-profit or underfunded public colleges—are graduating with significant debt and few prospects for stable, high-paying careers. This has created a growing “educated underclass,” where graduates with degrees struggle to find employment that pays enough to manage their loan repayment, further exacerbating wealth inequality.

---

The Dangers of Future Issues: AI, Automation, and the Loss of Good Jobs

Looking to the future, the privatization of student loans and the increasing burden of student debt could be exacerbated by emerging technological shifts, particularly in the fields of artificial intelligence (AI) and automation. As industries evolve and more jobs become automated, many middle-class careers traditionally accessible to graduates may disappear or evolve into low-wage, low-security positions. This could lead to an even larger divide between the "haves" and "have-nots" in society, where only those with connections or elite educational backgrounds can secure stable, high-paying employment.

For students entering the workforce with massive student loan debt, this would present a troubling scenario where their ability to repay their loans becomes even more difficult as fewer well-paying jobs are available. This, in turn, would increase the financial strain on future generations of students who are already navigating a rapidly changing job market. For many, student loans could become an insurmountable barrier, keeping them trapped in cycles of debt that are impossible to escape.

Moreover, the increasing reliance on private companies to manage student loans, with their focus on profitability, could exacerbate these issues by offering fewer opportunities for income-driven repayment plans or relief options that account for the economic realities of an AI-powered, automation-driven economy. As the job market continues to shrink and evolve, the need for federal programs to support borrowers through tough economic times will only grow.

---

The Impact of Eliminating Borrower Protections

The elimination of borrower protections—such as PSLF, PAYE, ICR, and Borrower Defense to Repayment—would significantly worsen the student loan crisis. Public Service Loan Forgiveness, for example, allows individuals working in essential public service careers to receive loan forgiveness after ten years of qualifying payments. Without this program, many public servants would face a lifetime of insurmountable debt. Similarly, income-driven repayment programs allow borrowers to repay loans based on their income, making it easier for those in low-paying fields to manage their debt.

The Borrower Defense to Repayment program provides vital relief to students who were defrauded by their institutions. Without strong enforcement of this program, students may have no recourse to seek relief from predatory schools. The rollback of Gainful Employment regulations could further expose students to the risks of attending for-profit institutions that fail to deliver on their promises.

---

The Long-Term Fallout: A Dangerous Precedent

The long-term consequences of privatizing student loans could include exacerbating wealth inequality, widening the racial wealth gap, and creating an economic landscape where education debt is a permanent burden on a generation of students. If privatization moves forward, the financial burden of education will likely become a far more persistent and overwhelming problem, especially for those who can least afford it.

What’s particularly concerning is that in past crises, it’s the elites—wealthy colleges, financial institutions, and large corporations—that have consistently received the bulk of government bailouts. The same institutions that contribute the least to solving the country’s educational inequities continue to benefit from taxpayer-funded relief. If privatization moves forward, we cannot allow the same pattern to repeat itself. The majority of relief should go to those most burdened by student debt, not those who already have the means to navigate the system with ease.

---

The Future of Higher Education Debt: A Call to Protect Federal Loan Programs

At the Higher Education Inquirer, we stand in full support of federal student loan forgiveness and repayment programs, including PSLF, PAYE, and ICR, as they offer essential pathways for borrowers, especially public service workers and low-income individuals. These programs provide vital relief to borrowers, allowing them to focus on their careers without the burden of overwhelming debt. We urge policymakers to protect, enhance, and expand these vital initiatives to ensure that education remains accessible and equitable for all.

As we continue to face challenges in higher education financing, it is crucial to learn from past mistakes and advocate for systems that prioritize the well-being of students, not profit. The proposed privatization of the student loan system threatens to undo decades of progress and burden future generations with lifelong debt. It is essential that we protect these programs and work toward a solution that prioritizes education and fairness over corporate interests.

Militant Education In and Beyond the University - National Day of Action for Higher Education (Common Notions)

 

Florida State University Mass Shooting (CBS News)

The Destruction of ED General Counsel: "It will be like the Wild West"

With the US Department of Education firing 85 of an estimated 95 lawyers in General Counsel, subprime colleges and online program managers will have a field day. According to one industry expert, it could be "like the Wild West," with no oversight over the buying and selling of schools. And that also means that the College Meltdown could get worse even faster than we imagined. The Higher Education Inquirer is already monitoring a number of potential sales, including the University of Phoenix. We are also expecting a number of schools to be insolvent in 2025, leaving students in a lurch, with little or no warning. 

 

April 17, 2025 National Day of Action for Higher Ed (Higher Ed Labor United)

April 17, 2025 National Day of Action for Higher Ed On April 17, HELU is partnering with the Coalition for Action in Higher Education (CAHE) for the National Day of Action for Higher Education. There are more than 175 events planned in 44 states for April 17. We urge you to join us however you can, either in-person or online. As campus workers, students, and community members, we have a unique power and responsibility to exercise our collective voice in this moment of turmoil. It is our labor and our ideas which sustain higher education, and higher education sustains our economy and communities. The April 17 National Day of Action for Higher Education asserts our voice and our power, in a myriad of ways that reflect the diversity of our colleges and universities.  Learn more and find an action near you.    Find an April 17 action near you Online: Teach-ins, Workshops & Trainings In addition to the campus events across the country, we are hosting more than a dozen online events for the National Day of Action for Higher Education. Many campuses are hosting watch parties for one or more of these online events. Learn more about April 17 online events and register here. These events include a National Teach-in: "Free Higher Ed Now!" at 7pm ET/6pm CT/5pm MT/4pm PT! Register for the teach-in here.   Register for an April 17 Online Event Want to support our work? Make a contribution. We invite you to support HELU's work by making a direct financial contribution. While HELU's main source of income is solidarity pledges from member organizations, these funds from individuals help us to grow capacity as we work to align the higher ed labor movement.   Contribute to HELU

Copyright © 2025 Higher Ed Labor United, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website. Our mailing address is: Higher Ed Labor United 11 Stone Street New Brunswick, NJ 08901 Add us to your address book

College Meltdown 2025, Quarter 1: Here we are, at another fork in the road.

In an August 2022 interview with Gary Stocker of College Viability, I offered a chilling projection for U.S. higher education and the College Meltdown:

“The worst-case scenario is that colleges are involved on both sides of a Second US Civil War between Christian Fundamentalists and neoliberals. Working families will take the largest hit.”

It’s a stark and provocative warning, but one grounded in decades of neoliberal policy, predatory capitalism, and ideological warfare. From our perspective at the Higher Education Inquirer, the College Meltdown is not a future risk—it’s a slow-moving catastrophe already unfolding.

Two Fronts in a Cultural and Economic War

On one side of this looming conflict are Christian fundamentalists who seek to remake public education in their own image: purging curricula of critical perspectives, defunding public universities, and promoting ideological orthodoxy over inquiry.

On the other side are neoliberal technocrats, who have transformed higher education into a marketplace of credentials, debt, and precarious labor. Under their regime, colleges prioritize growth, branding, and profit over education, equity, and labor rights.

Both groups, while ideologically different, are willing to use colleges as instruments of power. In doing so, they turn institutions of higher learning into ideological battlegrounds, undermining their civic purpose.

The Educated Underclass: Evidence of Collapse

One of the most visible outcomes of this dysfunction is the rise of the educated underclass. These are people who did what they were told: they went to college, took on debt, and earned degrees. Yet instead of opportunity, they found instability.

“A large proportion of those who have attended colleges have become part of a growing educated underclass,” Shaulis noted in his interview with Stocker.

This includes:

• Adjunct instructors working multiple jobs without benefits

• Degree holders underemployed in gig work

• Students lured into expensive, low-return programs at subprime colleges

These individuals are too educated for social support but too broke for economic stability. They are the byproduct of a system that treats education as a private investment rather than a public good.

Colleges in Crisis: A Systemic Failure

At the Higher Education Inquirer, our concept of the College Meltdown describes a long-term decline marked by falling enrollment, rising costs, debt peonage, and declining academic labor conditions:

• Enrollment has been falling since 2011, with sharp declines in community colleges and regional publics.

• Student debt has exploded, with minimal returns for many graduates.

• Academic labor is being deskilled, with "robocolleges" relying on underpaid, non-tenure-track staff or automated instruction.

• State funding is shrinking, as aging populations drive up Medicaid costs and crowd out investment in public higher education.

Enter the Trump Administration (2025)

The return of Donald Trump to the presidency in 2025 has further accelerated the higher ed crisis. His administration is now actively contributing to the system’s unraveling:

Deregulation and Predatory Practices

Trump’s Department of Education is dismantling federal oversight of for-profit colleges, weakening gainful employment protections and allowing discredited institutions back into the federal aid system. This benefits subprime colleges that trap students in cycles of debt.

Political Weaponization of Higher Ed

Trump-aligned state governments and federal agencies are targeting DEI initiatives, restricting academic freedom, and enforcing ideological conformity. Public colleges are increasingly being used to wage cultural wars.

Funding Cuts and Favoritism

Funding is being diverted from public institutions toward private religious colleges and corporate-friendly training programs. Meanwhile, community colleges and regional universities are being left to die on the vine.

Undermining Debt Relief

Efforts to reform or forgive student loans have been stalled or reversed. Borrowers are left stranded in opaque systems, while private loans surge in popularity—often with worse terms and even less accountability.

A Best-Case vs. Worst-Case Future

When asked what the next few years could look like, I offered a fork in the road:

Best case: Colleges become transparent, accountable, and aligned with the public good, confronting crises like climate change, inequality, and authoritarianism.

Worst case: Colleges become entrenched ideological battlegrounds, deepening inequality and social fragmentation. The educated underclass grows, and higher education becomes an engine of despair rather than mobility.

Conclusion

The College Meltdown is not a singular event—it is a long-term systemic crisis. Under the combined forces of privatization, political polarization, and demographic stress, U.S. higher education is being hollowed out.

As colleges pick sides in a broader culture war, the public mission of higher education is being sacrificed. The working class and the educated underclass are the casualties of a system that promised prosperity but delivered precarity.

In this volatile moment, the future of American higher education may well mirror the broader American crisis: one defined by deepening divides, fraying institutions, and a desperate need for accountability, justice, and reinvention.

Chris Rufo and Right Wing "Civil Rights"

Chris Rufo’s recent article in City Journal, titled "New Right-Wing Civil-Rights Regime", is a prime example of ideological revisionism that fails to engage with history in any meaningful way. At its core, Rufo presents an interpretation of the civil rights movement and its aftermath that is both profoundly ahistorical and dangerously reductionist. While attempting to frame his argument as a critique of the modern Left’s grip on civil rights law, Rufo distorts the legacy of the 1960s civil rights movement and misrepresents the real challenges of racial justice in America today.

Chris Rufo, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute and a prominent figure in the battle against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies, has gained significant influence in recent years for his aggressive campaigns to shift the national discourse on race and education. Rufo's rise to prominence coincided with his efforts to expose and denounce critical race theory (CRT) in public education, a tactic that has been instrumental in shaping conservative rhetoric around race. His latest article continues this trend, proposing that the Trump administration's attack on DEI programs in higher education represents a necessary correction to what he perceives as a Left-wing racialist agenda.

However, Rufo’s understanding of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its legacy is highly problematic. The article begins by referencing Christopher Caldwell’s The Age of Entitlement, a book that has been influential in certain conservative circles. Caldwell’s thesis, which Rufo echoes, argues that the Civil Rights Act marked a "fundamental departure" from America’s constitutional tradition. According to Caldwell (and by extension, Rufo), the Act, initially a noble effort to combat racial discrimination, eventually "consumed core American freedoms" and has been weaponized to entrench "left-wing racialist ideology" in American institutions. This narrative, however, overlooks the essential purpose of the Civil Rights Act—to eliminate legally sanctioned racial discrimination and provide equal protection to marginalized groups.

Rufo’s invocation of Caldwell’s book is troubling because it oversimplifies the historical context of civil rights legislation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not the beginning of a long, slow descent into tyranny, as Rufo suggests, but rather the long-overdue correction of centuries of systemic racism. The idea that it was somehow a “departure” from constitutional principles is a misguided reading of both the Act’s intent and the broader history of American law. To frame the Act’s enforcement mechanisms and subsequent civil rights policies as a threat to "core American freedoms" is a distortion that erases the basic reality of racial oppression in the U.S. before and after its passage.

The Legacy of White Supremacy and Structural Racism

What Rufo and those who echo his arguments fail to acknowledge is the enduring legacy of white supremacy and structural racism that has pervaded American society for centuries. The very system of racial discrimination that the Civil Rights Act sought to dismantle is far from a relic of the past; it is woven into the fabric of American institutions, policies, and practices in ways that continue to disadvantage Black people and other people of color.

One glaring example is the practice of redlining, where federal policies explicitly denied mortgage loans and insurance to Black families and other communities of color in favor of white neighborhoods. The result was the creation of segregated, impoverished urban spaces that continue to suffer from disinvestment and lack of opportunity to this day. In many cities, predominantly Black neighborhoods were intentionally situated near polluting industries, highways, and other environmentally harmful sites—leading to environmental racism. For example, toxic waste was often dumped in or near Black communities, subjecting these populations to higher rates of asthma, cancer, and other health problems. These practices are a direct manifestation of a racist infrastructure that systematically devalued the lives and health of Black and Brown Americans.

Similarly, housing policies throughout the 20th century—especially during the post-WWII era—were designed to exclude Black families from the expanding suburban dream. The GI Bill, which offered housing subsidies to veterans returning from World War II, was administered in ways that largely excluded Black servicemen from accessing these benefits. As a result, millions of white families were able to buy homes and build wealth, while Black families were largely left out, forcing many into substandard housing or limited to racially segregated neighborhoods with fewer opportunities for economic mobility.

The effects of segregation are not limited to housing, however. In education, the legacy of white supremacy has created an unequal system that continues to affect Black and Latinx students today. While Brown v. Board of Education (1954) officially declared school segregation unconstitutional, de facto segregation still exists in many schools due to housing patterns, local funding disparities, and state and federal neglect. Predominantly Black schools often face chronic underfunding, inadequate facilities, and higher teacher turnover rates, all of which contribute to a less equitable education for students of color. The persistent racial achievement gap in standardized testing, college admissions, and career prospects is not an accident, but the direct result of this long-standing inequality in education.

In the workplace, systemic discrimination continues to be a major problem. Job discrimination against Black and Brown workers has been documented for decades, whether in hiring practices, wage disparities, or promotions. Studies show that applicants with “ethnic-sounding” names are less likely to be called back for job interviews, even when their resumes are identical to those of their white counterparts. Even in fields like law, medicine, and finance—where education and credentials are paramount—racial minorities face significant barriers to advancement.

The criminal justice system is perhaps the most visible example of how structural racism is still a significant issue in the United States. The over-policing of Black neighborhoods, mass incarceration, and the disproportionate sentencing of Black Americans for similar offenses compared to their white counterparts are stark reminders of how racial inequality remains embedded in American institutions. Rufo’s argument that we have moved past the systemic racism embedded in our society ignores this reality, while conveniently minimizing or disregarding the lived experiences of Black and Brown communities.

"Colorblindness" as a Historical Evasion

Rufo goes on to argue that the Right, for years ambivalent about civil rights law, has now discovered its “winning argument”—one grounded in “colorblind equality.” This is where the article takes a dangerous turn, suggesting that policies such as affirmative action and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives are the result of a Left-wing plot to institutionalize racial discrimination. The article not only misrepresents the goals of such programs but also fundamentally misunderstands the role they play in a society that has never fully reckoned with its history of racial inequities.

The notion of “colorblindness” as the ideal model of equality, promoted by Rufo and others, is deeply problematic. While it may sound appealing in theory, in practice, colorblindness ignores the structural realities of race in America. It’s an abstraction that overlooks the lived experiences of racial minorities and fails to address the historical and ongoing disadvantages they face. In higher education, for example, DEI policies are designed not to perpetuate discrimination but to provide opportunities for those who have been historically excluded from academic spaces. Rufo’s argument that these policies are a form of “racialist discrimination” is not only misleading but actively harmful, suggesting that efforts to correct inequality are themselves a form of bigotry.

Chris Rufo’s Avoidance of Class in His Analysis

One of the most glaring omissions in Rufo’s analysis is his near-total avoidance of class as a factor in understanding systemic inequality. Rufo's focus is almost exclusively on race, specifically on how he perceives racial policies to be privileging one group over another, but he does not consider the ways in which class and economic status intersect with race to perpetuate inequality. This avoidance of class, particularly in the context of economic mobility and working-class struggles, weakens his entire argument and distorts the reality of how racism operates in modern American society.

Rufo’s critique of the modern civil rights regime seems to entirely ignore the vast disparities in wealth, income, and opportunity that are not simply a product of racial identity but of class-based systems of power. For example, his focus on “colorblind” equality in education does not account for the fact that the richest Americans, regardless of their racial background, have access to a far superior education and resources than the poor, who are disproportionately Black, Latinx, or Indigenous. The education gap that Rufo claims is a result of racial policies is also a direct consequence of economic inequality, where low-income communities—largely communities of color—are unable to access the same quality of education as wealthier, predominantly white communities. Acknowledging this would complicate Rufo’s narrative, as it would challenge the simplistic framing of a racial conflict between different ethnic groups, rather than a structural critique of the class divide in America.

Moreover, Rufo’s call for a “colorblind” society effectively erases the fact that poverty and economic disempowerment are racialized in ways that cannot be understood without examining the intersection of race and class. By focusing solely on racial hierarchy without addressing the role that economic disparity plays in sustaining social divisions, Rufo contributes to a larger ideological erasure of class struggle from the national conversation. His avoidance of class is a deliberate one, as it allows him to cast the issue of racial justice solely in terms of “identity politics” and to dismiss efforts aimed at addressing material inequality as divisive or unnecessary.

Who Will Be Receptive to This Propaganda?

While Rufo's article represents a highly selective interpretation of civil rights history, it will likely resonate with certain groups whose political and cultural leanings align with his critique of left-wing ideologies. These are individuals who believe that the modern civil rights agenda, particularly in the form of DEI and affirmative action programs, has gone too far and is now harmful to the interests of "oppressor" groups like white people, men, and even some Asian Americans. This demographic includes:

1. Conservative and Libertarian Thinkers: Many who align with conservative or libertarian ideologies are drawn to the narrative that civil rights policies have become a tool of social engineering, seeking to dismantle traditional values in the name of racial and gender equality. Rufo’s emphasis on "colorblind" policies will appeal to those who see government intervention as an overreach and prefer individual merit over group-based policies.

2. Populist Right-Wing Activists: The article will likely resonate with populist voters who view institutions like the Ivy League universities as bastions of elitism and left-wing ideologies. These individuals are often distrustful of academic institutions, the media, and governmental institutions, and Rufo’s framing of DEI as racialist discrimination plays into their fears of being "marginalized" in favor of minority groups.

3. Cultural War Foot Soldiers: Many of Rufo’s ideas are packaged as part of the broader culture wars. His framing of CRT, DEI, and "wokeness" as threats to American values is designed to rally those who feel alienated by changes in cultural norms, especially regarding race, gender, and identity. This group tends to be more reactive to what they perceive as a breakdown in social order, and Rufo provides a coherent narrative that positions them as defenders of a traditional, meritocratic society.

4. Right-Wing Media Consumers: The article is likely to appeal to consumers of right-wing media who are already attuned to the language of cultural decline and political correctness. These readers will be receptive to Rufo’s framing because it aligns with familiar themes promoted by conservative pundits.

In the end, Rufo’s narrative is one that is carefully designed for a particular audience—a segment of the American populace that feels threatened by the cultural shifts around race, identity, and equality. By presenting a revisionist history of civil rights and ignoring the deeply embedded structural inequalities of class, race, and economics, Rufo continues to peddle an ideological framework that is more about cultural warfare than actual justice.

The Tragedy of NCAA Athletes Who Died Young

[Editor's note: This article was written before the tragic death of former LSU football player Kyren Lacy, who died of an apparent suicide.]  

The NCAA has long been a cornerstone of American college sports, offering a platform for student-athletes to showcase their talent while pursuing higher education. These athletes are revered for their commitment, discipline, and often exceptional abilities, balancing the pressures of academics and the demands of competitive sports. However, there exists a darker side to this world—a series of tragedies that have shattered lives and futures. The untimely deaths of NCAA athletes, often in their youth, cast a long shadow over the collegiate sports landscape and demand reflection, discussion, and action.

A Stark Reality: The Lives Cut Short

In the past decade, there have been numerous heartbreaking stories of NCAA athletes who have tragically passed away at a young age. These athletes, in the prime of their lives, were known for their fierce dedication to their sports and the promise of success that lay ahead. From football players to track stars, the common thread among these stories is the shock and disbelief that accompany such sudden losses.

The deaths of athletes like Zachary Easter, a football player at the University of Iowa, or Mitch Petrus, a former Arkansas Razorback who played in the NFL, demonstrate the vulnerability of young athletes. These athletes, often strong and healthy, were still susceptible to the dangers of both physical and emotional stress, and the grim reality is that their stories are not isolated.

The causes of these deaths vary greatly. Some, like Easter, succumb to the pressures of mental health struggles, while others, like Petrus, tragically fall victim to cardiovascular events or other undiagnosed health conditions. However, the impact on families, friends, teammates, and the entire college community remains the same: profound grief and a relentless questioning of how such a loss could occur.

The High Stakes of College Sports

One of the underlying factors contributing to these tragedies is the intense pressure faced by student-athletes. The NCAA and its member institutions hold their athletes to extraordinarily high standards, both on and off the field. The expectation is often that they must excel in their sport while maintaining their academic standing—balancing an often grueling schedule of training, games, classes, and personal life.

While these demands can shape athletes into disciplined and resilient individuals, they can also contribute to physical and mental strain. Physical exhaustion, injuries, and the demands of performance can take a severe toll on the body, sometimes in ways that are not immediately visible or diagnosable. Mental health struggles, too, are increasingly recognized as a significant challenge for student-athletes, with many feeling isolated or overwhelmed by the pressure to succeed. Tragically, this pressure sometimes leads to a point where the athlete cannot carry on.

Further complicating matters is the culture of silence surrounding mental health in sports. Athletes are often expected to "push through" pain and adversity, leading many to mask their struggles, avoid seeking help, or underreport symptoms. This cultural stigma, combined with a lack of adequate mental health support, creates a deadly cocktail for some athletes, whose needs go unnoticed until it is too late.

The Role of Colleges and the NCAA

As institutions of higher education, colleges and universities have a responsibility to care for the well-being of their students—athletes included. However, there is a growing concern that some universities and the NCAA as a whole have not done enough to address the physical and mental health challenges faced by student-athletes.

The NCAA has made some strides in recent years, implementing policies designed to improve the health and safety of athletes. From concussion protocols to mental health awareness initiatives, these measures reflect a growing acknowledgment of the risks that student-athletes face. However, critics argue that these efforts are still insufficient and that the culture of winning at all costs often takes precedence over athlete welfare. The pressure to perform continues to outpace efforts to safeguard the well-being of athletes, leaving some to wonder whether the systems in place are truly protecting those who are most at risk.

Moreover, the lack of comprehensive long-term health care, especially for former athletes who may face long-term consequences from injuries or undiagnosed conditions, further highlights the systemic shortcomings in how the NCAA handles athlete health. While some colleges have programs to support former athletes, many feel that these programs are often inadequate for the long-term needs of those who were once part of the athletic community.

Mental Health: A Critical Issue

One area that has garnered increasing attention in recent years is the mental health of student-athletes. While the physical demands of sports are often the focus of attention, the psychological toll of being a college athlete can be equally, if not more, devastating.

Studies show that student-athletes are at higher risk for anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues compared to their non-athlete peers. The pressure to perform at a high level, combined with the stress of academic work, social expectations, and sometimes traumatic injuries, can be overwhelming. Tragically, this sometimes leads to self-destructive behaviors or even suicide.

In 2020, the death of Riley O’Neill, a University of Texas swimmer, shocked the collegiate community. O’Neill, a highly talented swimmer, struggled with depression and the pressure to perform. His death highlighted a broader issue of how universities and athletic programs often fail to provide adequate mental health resources or to address the stigma surrounding mental health struggles.

The tragedy of O’Neill’s passing, like others, underscores the need for universities and the NCAA to take proactive steps to ensure that student-athletes have access to counseling and mental health services. These services must be integrated into the athletic programs in a meaningful way, removing barriers to access and ensuring that athletes feel safe and supported in seeking help.

A Call for Change

The untimely deaths of NCAA athletes serve as a painful reminder of the sacrifices these young individuals make in pursuit of excellence. Their lives, cut short too soon, represent not only personal tragedies but a systemic issue that demands attention.

To prevent further heartbreak, colleges, universities, and the NCAA must make a more concerted effort to prioritize the physical and mental well-being of student-athletes. This means improving access to mental health services, providing better protections against physical risks, and creating a culture that values health and safety over performance and achievement.

In honor of those who have passed, we must ensure that future athletes do not have to suffer in silence, that their health is protected, and that their futures remain bright, even as they face the unique pressures of being a student-athlete. It is only through such efforts that the untimely deaths of these young athletes will lead to meaningful change, sparing others from the same fate.

The tragic loss of so many young athletes calls for us to reflect on the human cost of competitive sports, pushing for a shift in how we view success—one that values life and well-being as much as it does athletic performance. The NCAA and its member institutions must rise to the occasion, ensuring that these tragedies do not continue to define the legacy of college sports.

Harvard Pushes Back Against Trump's Threats to Academic Freedom

In a recent letter to the Harvard community, interim president Alan M. Garber sounded an alarm over what he described as an unprecedented threat to the independence of American higher education. The federal government, Garber revealed, has issued a sweeping list of demands—tied to ongoing funding relationships—that Harvard views as overreaching, unconstitutional, and fundamentally at odds with the mission of the university.

For more than 75 years, federal partnerships with research institutions like Harvard have fueled major advances in science, medicine, and engineering. These collaborations, Garber noted, have not only improved global health and safety but have also contributed to America’s economic strength. Now, amid heightened scrutiny over accusations of antisemitism on campuses, those partnerships are under threat.

According to Garber, the administration's demands go far beyond addressing antisemitism. They include proposals to audit viewpoints across the campus community and diminish the influence of students and faculty based on their ideological positions. Harvard has rejected the demands, asserting that they violate constitutional protections and Title VI limits, and represent an improper attempt by the federal government to regulate “intellectual conditions” at a private institution.

Garber emphasized that Harvard remains committed to combating antisemitism and fostering an inclusive, open environment for dialogue and learning. He pointed to steps already taken in the past year and reaffirmed the university’s dedication to free speech, due process, and viewpoint diversity.

“This is not just about Harvard,” Garber warned. “It’s about the role of American universities in a free society.” The university insists that teaching, research, and admissions must remain free from political interference, regardless of the party in power.

As pressure mounts, the broader academic community now faces a fundamental question: How much influence should the federal government exert over what is taught and debated in higher education? For Harvard, the answer remains clear: safeguarding academic freedom is essential to fulfilling its mission of truth-seeking—and to preserving the promise of American higher education.

How to Participate in April 17 Day of Action for Higher Education

Higher Education Inquirer readers are encouraged to participate in Day of Action for Higher Education on Thursday, April 17.  For more information, visit the Day of Action page at the the Coalition for Action in Higher Education website. The website also includes resources. The coalition includes the Debt Collective, AAUP, and Higher Education Labor United.

 

 

 

 

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.