A Planned Failure? The Dangerous Path to Privatizing Student Loans

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

The Alleged 'Rescue' of the Loan Portfolio

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

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

The SBA’s Inexperience with Student Loans

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

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

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

The Planned Failure

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

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

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

The Consumer Cost

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

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

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

A Dangerous Precedent

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

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

The Long-Term Fallout

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

A Predatory Scheme?

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

The United States: A Complex Landscape

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

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

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

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

---

Alternatives Worth Considering

Canada

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

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

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

United Kingdom

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

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

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

Australia

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

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

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

Germany

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

• Safety: Very low crime, excellent public infrastructure.

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

France

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

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

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

Ireland

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

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

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

Netherlands

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

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

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

---

Making the Right Choice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wealth and Want Part 4: Robocolleges and Roboworkers

The rise of online-only education has been a double-edged sword. While it has expanded access to higher education, it has also introduced a new breed of institutions (robocolleges), students (robostudents), and workers (roboworkers). These accredited online universities are for-profit, non-profit, secular, and Christian, but the all share similar characteristics. 

Robocolleges prioritize profit over pedagogy, churning out ambitious and busy working-class professionals in fields like education, medicine, and business--and hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt. These schools include Southern New Hampshire University, Grand Canyon University, Liberty University Online, University of Maryland Global, University of Phoenix, Purdue University Global, University of Arizona Global Campus, Walden University, Capella University, and Colorado Tech.  A list of America's largest robocolleges is here.

The Robocollege Model

Robocolleges are characterized by their reliance on technology to deliver education at scale. They often employ automated systems for course content delivery, student assessment, and even faculty interaction. While this can reduce costs, it can also lead to a dehumanized and impersonal learning experience.

• Aggressive Marketing and Recruitment: Robocolleges often employ aggressive marketing tactics to attract students, including misleading advertisements and high-pressure sales techniques. These tactics can lead students to make hasty decisions without fully considering the financial implications of their enrollment.
• High Tuition Costs: Robocolleges typically charge significantly higher tuition rates compared to public and nonprofit institutions. This is often justified by claims of providing a superior education or specialized programs, but the quality of education may not always align with the cost.
• Lack of Faculty Interaction: Many robocolleges rely heavily on pre-recorded lectures and automated feedback systems. This can deprive students of the valuable mentorship and guidance that comes from interacting with experienced faculty.
• Shallow Curriculum: To maximize enrollment and revenue, robocolleges may offer overly broad or superficial curricula. This can result in graduates who lack the depth of knowledge and critical thinking skills required for professional success.
• Focus on Quantity Over Quality: Robocolleges often prioritize churning out graduates rather than ensuring their academic excellence. This can lead to a decline in standards and a dilution of the value of their degrees.
• Limited Academic Support: Robocolleges may have fewer resources and support services compared to traditional institutions, which can make it difficult for students to succeed academically. This can result in increased dropout rates and prolonged time to graduation, leading to higher overall costs.
• Poor Job Placement Rates: Graduates of robocolleges may struggle to find employment in their chosen fields or secure jobs that pay enough to justify the high cost of their education. This can make it challenging to repay student loans, especially if the loans are based on the expected earning potential of the degree.

The Impact on Professional Fields

• Education: Substandard educators can harm students' learning outcomes and contribute to a cycle of educational inequality.
• Medicine: Substandard medical professionals can pose a serious risk to patient safety and health. 
• Business: Graduates from robocolleges may lack the practical skills and business acumen needed to succeed in the competitive job market. 
• Government: Graduates may lack essential interpersonal skills like communication, negotiation, conflict resolution, and team building.  
  
  

 

Consequences of Student Debt on Roboworkers:

• Delayed Major Life Milestones: Student debt can delay major life milestones such as buying a home, starting a family, or pursuing further education.
• Financial Stress and Anxiety: The burden of student debt can lead to significant financial stress and anxiety, impacting overall well-being.
• Limited Economic Mobility: High levels of student debt can limit economic mobility, making it difficult for individuals to achieve their financial goals and improve their standard of living.
  

Addressing the Problem

To address the issue of substandard professionals produced by robocolleges, several measures can be taken:

• Increased Oversight: Regulatory bodies should strengthen oversight of online institutions to ensure they meet minimum quality standards.
• Transparency: Robocolleges should be required to disclose their faculty qualifications, course delivery methods, and student outcomes.
• Accreditation Reform: Accreditation standards should be updated to reflect the unique challenges and opportunities of online education.
• Consumer Awareness: Students should be made aware of the potential risks of enrolling in robocolleges and encouraged to research institutions carefully.

While online education can be a valuable tool, it is essential to hold institutions accountable for the quality of education they provide. By addressing the shortcomings of robocolleges, we can ensure that online learning continues to be a force for positive change in higher education.

Related links:

Robocollege Update (2024)

Robocolleges, Artificial Intelligence, and the Dehumanization of Higher Education (2023)

AI-ROBOT CAPITALISTS WILL DESTROY THE HUMAN ECONOMY (Randall Collins, 2023)

Guild Education: Enablers of Anti-Union Corporations and Subprime College Programs (2021)

The Growth of "RoboColleges" and "Robostudents" (2019)

The Higher Education Assembly Line (2019)

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

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

Statement from Aissa Canchola Bañez, Policy Director of SBPC:

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

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

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

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

Further Reading

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

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

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

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

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

About Student Borrower Protection Center

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

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

Campus Protests, Campus Safety, and the Student Imagination

According to the LA Times, students at Cal Berkeley, San Jose State, San Francisco State, and the University of San Francisco plan to hold coordinated protests on their campuses tomorrow. These actions are a continuation of this year's earlier protests against Israel's atrocities against Palestinians in Gaza--which have been backed by the United States, through arms deals and federal funding.

With the US-backed genocide expanding to the West Bank and Southern Lebanon, there will certainly be student resistance despite administrative and police efforts to make campus occupations and other forms of protest (even free speech and freedom of assembly) difficult.

The greatest threat so far from these protests has been to the reputations of elite universities and their endowments, rather than to campus safety. And the greatest perceived threat to administrators is that students and their allies have the imagination to resist in novel ways--without violence.   

Students have already gained partial victories with a handful of universities which have offered to review investment strategies complicit with genocide. These progressive schools include Brown University and San Francisco State. At the University of Michigan, pro-Palestinian students organized as the Shut it Down Party have won student elections.       

Coordinated and Secret Crackdowns

The crackdown measures that schools have already made to reduce free speech and other freedoms, and to stoke fear, are too numerous to list. Some of these measures, like increased surveillance are not even known by students, faculty, staff, and community folks. Just understanding that secret mass surveillance is possible helps administrators who want to quell good trouble. 

What are the real threats to campus safety? 

We hope these protests (and any other actions) will be nonviolent and have published a list of nonviolent methods for resistance as a starting point for discussion. Violence is not a good excuse even in crackdowns of this type, and it's a losing strategy for all sides--other than the right wing--who want chaos and hope to bait others. It takes great planning, discipline, and strategy not to take the bait. At the same time, we hope campus administrators will take the problems of sexual assault, hate crimes and other forms of violence, as well as the threats of mass shootings, more seriously than they have.

Related links: 

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

Methods of Student Nonviolent Resistance

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

Dangerous Spaces: Sexual Assault and Other Forms of Violence On and Off Campus

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

A People's History of Higher Education in the US?

Letter to an incoming freshman

 

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

by Denise-Marie Ordway, The Journalist's Resource

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

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

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

1. College Navigator

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

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

2. DataLab

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

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

3. Data.gov

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

4. Campus Security Data Analysis Cutting Tool

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

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

5. Official Cohort Default Rate Search

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

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

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

7. Healthy Minds Study

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

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

8. CIRCLE

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

9. Retraction Watch

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

10. Nonprofit Explorer

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

11. Community College Research Center

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

12. Minority-Serving Institutions Data Project

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

13. Association of American Medical Colleges

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

14. American Bar Association

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

15. College Board

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

16. GI Bill Comparison Tool

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

17. Higher Education Research and Development Survey

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

18. EdWorkingPapers

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

19. Education Resources Information Center

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Higher Education Inquirer: Increasingly Relevant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Stop Campus Hazing Act: What You Need to Know (Clery Center)

UPDATE: The Stop Campus Hazing Act was signed into law by President Biden on December 23, 2024. We have edited the below blog to reflect this update.

The Stop Campus Hazing Act (SCHA) amends section 485(f) of the Higher Education Act, otherwise known as the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act). Notably, the bill also changes the name of the Clery Act to the “Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Act”, representing the Act’s evolution in addressing broad campus safety needs.

Clery Center partnered with Gary and Julie DeVercelly, whose son, Gary DeVercelly, Jr. died by hazing in 2007, to begin advocating for federal anti-hazing legislation in 2014. These efforts led to the introduction of the Report and Education About Campus Hazing (REACH) Act in 2017, which was combined with elements of the END ALL Hazing Act to create the Stop Campus Hazing Act.
What will campuses be required to do?

The Stop Campus Hazing Act has three primary components: Inclusion of hazing statistics in annual security reports: Colleges and universities will need to include statistics for hazing incidents that were reported to campus security authorities or local law enforcement, as defined by SCHA, in their annual security reports.

 
Implementation of hazing policies, including those specific to hazing prevention: Colleges and universities will be required to have a hazing policy with information on how to make a report of hazing and the process used to investigate hazing incidents. They must also have a policy that addresses hazing prevention and awareness programs, which includes a description of research-informed campus-wide prevention programs and primary prevention strategies.

 
Compilation of a Campus Hazing Transparency Report: Each institution must compile and publish on a prominent location of their public website a hazing transparency report that summarizes findings concerning any student organization found to be in violation of the institution’s standards of conduct related to hazing. The report will include: The name of the student organization; A general description of the violation that resulted in a finding of responsibility; and Related dates (the date of the alleged incident, the date of the initiation of the investigation, the date the investigation ended with a finding, and the date the institution provided notice to the organization of the finding).

When will implementation start?

The timeline for implementation is as follows: January 1, 2025: Institutions should begin collecting hazing statistics to include in the annual security report.
June 23, 2025: Hazing policies must be in place.
July 1, 2025: Institutions must have a process for documenting violations of the institution’s standards of conduct relating to hazing.
December 23, 2025: The Campus Hazing Transparency Report, which includes the violations that institutions begin documenting in July, must be publicly available. The Campus Hazing Transparency Report must be updated at least two times a year.
October 1, 2026: Hazing statistics will first be included in the 2026 annual security report (2025 statistics).

How can I start planning for these changes?Register for our three-part Stop Campus Hazing Act training series:February 26 - Session 1: Hazing as a Clery Act Crime Statistic
March 5 - Session 2: Hazing Prevention Programming Requirements
March 12 - Session 3:Campus Hazing Transparency Report

Review your process for notifying and training campus security authorities on their responsibilities, as well as forms or systems used for incident reporting. Plan to update these materials to include hazing.

Determine what hazing policies already exist on campus and whether they address hazing prevention and awareness.

 
Bring together roles that will be involved in implementation of these requirements (including conduct professionals, public safety, and prevention educators) to discuss what policies or procedures may need to be updated.

View Clery Center's and StopHazing's free webinar to learn more about the Stop Campus Hazing Act.
Stay tuned for more information about our training series launching this winter.

“Repression on Grounds: A Virtual Town Hall on May 4 and Its Aftermath” (Faculty for Justice in Palestine)

(Charlottesville, VA)

In the aftermath of the violent repression of the encampment protests at UVa in May by police and administration, and with issues about first amendment rights at UVa still unresolved, faculty at the University of Virginia will host: “Repression on Grounds: A Virtual Town Hall on May 4 and Its Aftermath” on Sunday October 6 from 11 am -12:30 pm EDT. The town hall will be virtual.

Participants can register for the event here: https://tinyurl.com/56r54kus

The town hall will address violent break up of the pro-Palestinian encampment on May 4, 2024
by military-style police in riot gear and its aftermath. But rather than seeing this as a defeat,
organizers will share what they have learned since the summer and chart a path forward for
pro-Palestinian activism at UVA and nationally, including renewed calls for divestment from
Israel and genocide. The town hall will address:
- What happened on 5/4;
- What has happened since 5/4;
- Suggested steps moving forward;
- National framing;
- Disclosure, divestment & how to get involved
- Q&A

As Israel’s genocide in Gaza intensifies to include Lebanon, members of Faculty for Justice in
Palestine and allies will highlight the moral urgency of the moment and discuss the role student,
faculty, staff, and community activism and pressure has to do in achieving an arms embargo
against Israel and charting a path towards Palestinian sovereignty. With free speech and
academic freedom under fire across the nation and in the Commonwealth, It’s time to hear from
faculty, staff and students what is really going on with regards to freedom of speech, academic
freedom and protest rights at Jefferson’s University. 

As we enter into another academic year, questions of politics, both domestic and international,
are central to the work we do at the university. It is critically important that faculty, staff, and
students maintain the right to speak freely on these issues without risking the kinds of retaliation
they've seen in the last several months.

Contact: Faculty for Justice in Palestine, UVA. fjp.uva@gmail.com

 

Related links:

Elite Universities on Lockdown. Protestors Regroup.

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

Campus Protests, Campus Safety, and the Student Imagination

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

Methods of Student Nonviolent Resistance

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

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

A People's History of Higher Education in the US

The "Education Not Agitation" Act Seeks Crackdown on Campus Protestors

Republican Greg Murphy (MD) has introduced legislation in Congress to crack down on American college campuses, and to support the restriction of freedom of assembly and other Constitutional rights. The legislation is titled the Education Not Agitation Act.  

This legislation disqualifies individuals who are convicted of certain criminal offenses from receiving education related tax benefits including the American Opportunity Tax Credit, the Lifetime Learning Tax Credit, and the deduction on student loan interest. 

Specifically, if an individual is convicted of unlawful assembly, rioting, trespassing, vandalism, battery, or battery on a law enforcement officer while conducting a protest at an institute of higher education, they will be disqualified from receiving these tax benefits. 

Unlawful assembly is the legal term to describe a group of people with the mutual intent of deliberate disturbance of the peace. Trespassing is knowingly entering another owners' property or land without permission. Vandalism is the intentional destruction or defacement of another person's property. These acts, however, are subject to the varying opinions of law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and juries.

The threat of arrest and use of force, detention, school suspensions, deportations, and other police and administrative powers may be enough to prevent peaceful protests or reduce the power of the protestors. Some universities and state governments have already acted to reduce and restrict freedom of speech and assembly on campus.

Legislation like the Education Not Agitation Act further sanctions those who may have valid reasons for resistance on existential matters like war and peace, genocide, and catastrophic climate change. History (hopefully) will record that.  

Related links:

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

Campus Protests, Campus Safety, and the Student Imagination 

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

Methods of Student Nonviolent Resistance

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

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

A People's History of Higher Education in the US

How Would Trump's Plans for Mass Deportations Affect US Higher Education?

Elite Universities on Lockdown. Protestors Regroup.

[Updated 9-29-24]

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

Campus "Crime and Punishment"

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

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

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

Protests Off Campus

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

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

Protests on Campus

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

Collaboration Between Elite Schools and Law Enforcement

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

Related links:

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

Campus Protests, Campus Safety, and the Student Imagination 

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

Methods of Student Nonviolent Resistance

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

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

A People's History of Higher Education in the US

Trump Administration Clamps Down on Free Speech at US Universities

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

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

Free Speech for Some, Silence for Others

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

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

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

Defunding Diversity and Equity

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

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

A Playbook Borrowed from Budapest?

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

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

What’s at Stake for Students

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

The Fight for Academic Freedom Isn’t Over

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

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