Search This Blog

Saturday, May 3, 2025

House Republicans Push Sweeping Student Aid Cuts, Threatening Access for Millions

In a dramatic reshaping of the federal student aid system, House Republicans have introduced a 103-page legislative package that could raise the cost of college for millions of Americans while slashing $185 billion in federal spending over the next decade.

The legislation, a centerpiece of the GOP's budget reconciliation strategy, takes direct aim at key financial aid programs that have historically supported low-income, working-class, and underrepresented students. Education advocates and consumer protection groups warn the proposed cuts would deepen existing inequities in higher education and saddle a new generation of students with greater debt and fewer protections.

Tighter Pell Grant Requirements

Among the most contentious provisions is a proposal to tighten eligibility for the Pell Grant, the federal government’s primary need-based aid program. Under the bill, students would be required to complete 30 credit hours per academic year—up from the current 24—to receive the full grant. Those taking fewer than six credit hours would become ineligible altogether, even if they need just one class to graduate.

“While we support initiatives to reduce the time it takes for students to attain a degree, this approach may jeopardize time to completion for students who work part time,” said Kim Cook, CEO of the National College Attainment Network. “By increasing students’ unmet financial need, this proposal will also drive up student borrowing for millions.”

Cook’s organization estimates the new requirements would affect roughly 25% of current Pell Grant recipients, many of whom balance school with jobs or caregiving responsibilities.

Elimination of Subsidized Loans and Loan Access Limits

The bill also proposes to eliminate subsidized federal loans, which currently allow undergraduates to avoid interest accrual while in school. A limited three-year exemption would apply to students enrolled as of June 30, 2026.

“House Republicans propose charging low-income students more interest by ending the subsidized loan program for students with financial need,” said Abby Shafroth, co-director of advocacy at the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC).

Additionally, the bill would eliminate the PLUS Loan program for graduate students, capping lifetime borrowing at $100,000 for master’s degrees and $150,000 for law and medical students—figures that fall short of the actual cost of many programs.

Sweeping Changes to Repayment Plans

Perhaps the most far-reaching changes involve student loan repayment. The bill would consolidate the current four repayment options into just two: a standard 10-year plan and a single income-driven repayment (IDR) plan. The move would dismantle President Biden’s Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan, which is already facing legal challenges.

The new IDR plan would require borrowers to pay 15% of their discretionary income—defined as income above 150% of the federal poverty line. That represents a sharp increase over current IDR plans, where many borrowers pay 5% to 10%.

According to the NCLC, this change could more than triple monthly payments for borrowers enrolled in SAVE and force impoverished families to divert funds from essentials like food, rent, or medication.

The repayment timeline would also lengthen, with forgiveness arriving only after 20 years for undergraduate debt and 25 years for those with graduate loans. A new "Repayment Assistance Plan" would extend repayment to 30 years for many borrowers before they become eligible for forgiveness.

“These changes will add to the growing number of low-income older adults still burdened by student loan debt,” said Kyra Taylor, a senior attorney at NCLC. “It’s entirely possible that low-income Americans will still be paying off their own college debt when their children are entering college themselves.”

Rollback of Borrower Protections

The legislation also weakens borrower defense and school closure discharge rules, which offer relief to students defrauded by predatory institutions or impacted by sudden school closures.

The NCLC notes that the bill “rolls back common-sense regulations that would streamline relief for borrowers where the Department of Education has evidence that the school lied and used deception to enroll students in low-quality programs.”

Political and Economic Context

This legislation is part of a broader GOP initiative to slash $1.5 trillion in federal spending to fund former President Donald Trump’s proposed tax cuts, military expansion, and border security initiatives. House Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI) has been charged with identifying $330 billion in cuts—placing higher education directly in the crosshairs.

The bill may clear the Republican-controlled House, but its prospects in the narrowly divided Senate remain uncertain. Nonetheless, its introduction signals a renewed ideological clash over the federal role in expanding access to higher education.

Dr. Jamal Watson, author of the forthcoming book The Student Debt Crisis: America’s Moral Urgency, argues the legislation would disproportionately harm students of color, first-generation college-goers, and adult learners.

“The policies in this bill reflect a profound misunderstanding—or disregard—for the lived realities of today’s students,” said Watson. “If passed, it will exacerbate inequality and leave millions further behind.”

Friday, May 2, 2025

Trump’s War on Public Knowledge: The Dismantling of ERIC, the Gutting of IMLS, and the Erosion of Educational Access

When teachers search for lesson plans, parents look up school policies, or researchers investigate the American education system, many unknowingly rely on public infrastructure that makes this information accessible. One such pillar is ERIC—the Education Resources Information Center—a free, open-access archive of over 2.1 million education documents funded by the U.S. Department of Education. Another is the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), which provides critical funding and research support to libraries and museums across the country.

Both are now under coordinated attack.

ERIC was set to stop updating after April 23. IMLS, the primary federal funding source for libraries and museums, is being gutted. The Trump administration has not only defunded these institutions—it’s dismantling the very structures that enable public access to knowledge, learning, and culture.


Coordinated Sabotage, Cloaked in Bureaucracy

ERIC’s shutdown is not due to budget shortfalls or Congressional gridlock. It’s a deliberate move by the administration, executed through a newly created bureaucratic entity called DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency). Though Congress authorized ERIC’s funding through 2028, DOGE has blocked the release of those funds, rendering the program inoperable.

Meanwhile, IMLS is facing its own death by design. A recent executive order signed by President Trump calls for the elimination of IMLS “to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law,” alongside six other small agencies. Staff were told that the agency would be “down to the studs,” with some projections suggesting the workforce will be cut from 75 employees to just 30—possibly transferring some to the Department of Labor. Remaining functions will be reduced to only what is legally required, hollowing out its ability to provide grants, support research, or shape policy.

“It’s devastating to the communities that we serve, the libraries and museums across this country,” one IMLS employee said.


Public Knowledge as Political Casualty

What connects ERIC and IMLS is their role in preserving and democratizing access to knowledge. ERIC is often called the education sector’s version of PubMed, a go-to source for peer-reviewed articles, gray literature, and independent research on American education. IMLS, with a $295 million annual budget, supports thousands of libraries and museums through grants and development initiatives, especially in underserved communities.

Their destruction is not a policy accident. It’s a political strategy.

“These cuts aren’t about trimming fat,” said Erin Pollard Young, former ERIC director who was terminated in a mass layoff of 1,300 education department employees. “They’re about eliminating sources of information that contradict the administration’s ideological narrative.”

ERIC’s gray literature includes unpublished reports and local school evaluations that expose hard truths about segregation, inequality, and failed corporate reforms. These aren’t easy to spin into culture war fodder—so instead, they’re buried.


From Starving Budgets to Shutting Doors

Pollard Young was ordered by DOGE to slash ERIC’s budget from $5.5 million to $2.25 million. Her plan included eliminating nearly half of ERIC’s journal coverage and absorbing duties from contractors. Even then, her revised budget proposal was summarily rejected with an email in all caps: “THIS IS NOT APPROVED.”

At IMLS, staff were given just days to apply for early retirement or incentive payments. Reduction in Force (RIF) notices are expected any day now, signaling the beginning of mass layoffs. The agency’s capacity to serve local libraries and cultural institutions is rapidly being dismantled.

The cumulative effect is clear: this administration is starving the nation’s knowledge infrastructure. Libraries. Research databases. Museums. Education grants. Anything that supports open inquiry and informed decision-making is being cut off at the source.


What’s Next? The Slow Death of Public Knowledge Infrastructure

ERIC and IMLS may only be the beginning.

If the Trump administration continues along this trajectory, other public knowledge databases could soon face similar attacks. Publicly funded resources like:

  • PubMed (biomedical literature)

  • NCES (National Center for Education Statistics)

  • NTIS (National Technical Information Service)

  • Data.gov (federal open data)

  • NASA’s Scientific and Technical Information Program

  • The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

...could be hollowed out or shuttered under the guise of “efficiency.” These databases, often invisible to the public, power entire ecosystems of policy research, scientific discovery, journalism, and local decision-making. Their disappearance would leave a vacuum easily filled by misinformation, partisan spin, and corporate-sponsored content.

What’s at stake is the very infrastructure of truth.

The erosion of credible, accessible, and independent information sources is not just about education—it’s about the dismantling of informed citizenship. Without publicly funded, peer-reviewed, and historically reliable databases, Americans are left to sort through algorithmically curated noise, corporate propaganda, and ideological misinformation with no baseline for truth.

The result? A nation where facts are optional, history is rewritten, and the public sphere is reduced to echo chambers of power.


An Attack on Democracy Itself

The consequences extend far beyond research access. This is an attack on the civic institutions that uphold democracy. Without ERIC, schools and policymakers lose the ability to make evidence-based decisions. Without IMLS, libraries—often the only internet access point in rural and poor communities—will lose the support they need to stay open.

“Defunding ERIC would limit public access to critical education research,” said Gladys Cruz of AASA, The School Superintendents Association. “The same goes for IMLS. When you pull out the scaffolding of knowledge from public life, what remains is ideology, disinformation, and ignorance.”

The Department of Education has doubled down, attacking the Institute of Education Sciences (ERIC’s parent agency) as ineffective—standard operating procedure in this administration: discredit the institution, defund it, destroy it.


A Call to Resist

Pollard Young is risking retaliation by speaking out. “To me, it is important for the field to know that I am doing everything in my power to save ERIC,” she said. “And also for the country to understand what is happening.”

We should listen.

What we’re witnessing is a 21st-century form of authoritarianism—not through overt censorship alone, but through systematic erasure of public knowledge, carried out under the pretense of bureaucratic streamlining. The goal is to leave behind a nation with fewer tools to learn, less access to the truth, and more room for lies to grow.

ERIC and IMLS are more than databases or funding agencies. They are lifelines to knowledge, culture, and informed citizenship. Killing them isn’t just reckless.

It’s ideological.

And we ignore their dismantling at our peril.

Thursday, May 1, 2025

US Higher Education's Move to the Right

In recent years, the political landscape of U.S. higher education has undergone a noticeable shift, with universities, faculty, and academic discourse increasingly moving toward more conservative positions. This transformation, which some see as a response to growing societal polarization, has raised important questions about the future of academic freedom, diversity of thought, and the role of universities in shaping the ideological future of the nation. At its core, however, the rise of right-wing ideology within higher education is beginning to present a larger existential threat to the future of the United States itself—its democratic values, global influence, and even the sustainability of its political system.

The Rise of Conservative Voices on Campus

Historically, U.S. higher education has been perceived as a bastion of liberal thought. The overwhelming majority of faculty members, especially in the humanities and social sciences, lean left politically, and university campuses have often been hotbeds of progressive activism. However, recent trends suggest that conservative voices are gaining traction in academic spaces, and their influence is becoming more apparent.

One of the key indicators of this shift is the increasing number of conservative professors and scholars. While conservative scholars have long been underrepresented in academia, a growing number of universities are seeing new initiatives to diversify intellectual perspectives. Some schools have even created specific programs to attract conservative or libertarian thinkers, with the goal of ensuring a broader ideological representation in faculty and curriculum.

Further fueling this rise in conservative thought on campus is the growing prominence of organizations like Turning Point USA (TPUSA). Founded in 2012 by Charlie Kirk, TPUSA has become one of the leading organizations promoting conservative views among students. The organization’s influence has been a significant force in reshaping the political climate on U.S. campuses, advocating for free markets, limited government, and traditional values, while also fiercely opposing what it sees as left-wing indoctrination in higher education.

Turning Point USA has launched a variety of initiatives to spread conservative ideas, from organizing campus chapters to hosting events and debates aimed at fostering a more balanced discourse on issues like free speech, political correctness, and social justice. TPUSA’s “#DefundTheUniversities” campaign, for example, highlights the organization’s belief that public universities have become ideological echo chambers that perpetuate liberal views while stifling conservative opinions. Through their grassroots activism, TPUSA has successfully mobilized thousands of students across the nation to challenge what they perceive as a political monoculture on campus.

The Political and National Security Implications

The increasing dominance of conservative ideology on campuses isn't just a shift in academic discourse—it also has broader implications for the future of the United States as a democracy and a global superpower. As universities play a critical role in shaping the next generation of leaders, scientists, policymakers, and innovators, a marked shift toward the right could reshape American political identity in ways that undermine core democratic values, international standing, and future prosperity.

As political polarization deepens in the U.S., the growing influence of right-wing thought on college campuses is contributing to a narrowing of intellectual diversity. This ideological homogenization threatens to stifle critical thinking and open dialogue, both of which are essential to the functioning of a healthy democracy. In the face of global challenges—ranging from climate change and economic inequality to international conflicts—the U.S. needs universities to foster broad-minded, evidence-based perspectives, not ideological echo chambers that prioritize partisan loyalty over reasoned debate.

Moreover, as some conservative voices increasingly advocate for a rollback of certain civil rights, a stricter immigration policy, and policies that privilege nationalism over globalism, the move to the right within academia risks undermining the very ideals that have helped maintain the U.S.’s status as a democratic superpower. With more conservative policies influencing everything from the teaching of history to the shaping of economic and environmental policy, the United States risks retreating from its role as a leader in global affairs.

The Role of Natalism: A Cultural and Ideological Shift

At the same time, some conservative ideologues are placing increasing emphasis on the idea of natalism, a policy of encouraging higher birth rates in order to ensure the future of the nation’s population and economic vitality. This has gained traction in right-wing political circles, partly as a reaction to what they perceive as declining birth rates and societal shifts toward individualism over traditional family values.

Natalist arguments often center on the need to preserve a strong national identity and to ensure that future generations of Americans are capable of maintaining the country’s global dominance. Some conservatives argue that America’s declining birth rates, alongside growing concerns over immigration and cultural shifts, pose a threat to its long-term strength as both a democracy and a superpower.

From this perspective, universities may come under increasing pressure to align their policies with a more natalist agenda—encouraging families to have more children and ensuring that the nation’s cultural values are passed on to future generations. In practice, this could lead to an emphasis on traditional family structures and ideologies that prioritize reproduction, national loyalty, and the consolidation of conservative cultural values.

Such a move could further stoke division in the U.S., as liberals, progressives, and more moderate thinkers push back against efforts to center population growth as a national priority. It also raises concerns about women’s rights and reproductive freedoms, areas where the U.S. has seen significant political battles over the past several years. By pushing a natalist agenda, the right may inadvertently push American society toward greater social and cultural conservatism, while alienating the diverse, inclusive values that have long been the hallmark of American democracy.

Anti-Intellectualism and the Decline of History, Humanities, and Social Sciences

One of the most concerning aspects of this ideological shift within American higher education is the rise of anti-intellectualism—a growing sentiment that dismisses intellectual pursuits, scholarly inquiry, and academic rigor, particularly in fields like the humanities, social sciences, and history. At a time when the U.S. needs to foster critical thinking, nuanced debate, and cross-disciplinary solutions to pressing global problems, anti-intellectualism threatens to undermine the very foundation of higher education and democratic citizenship.

Anti-intellectualism in U.S. education often manifests as an outright rejection of academia in favor of populist rhetoric that prioritizes "common sense" over expert knowledge. This attitude is part of a broader cultural movement that discredits scientific consensus, historical analysis, and nuanced social inquiry, particularly in areas related to race, gender, and social justice. In an environment where truth is increasingly seen as subjective and knowledge is often dismissed as ideological, universities face the difficult challenge of defending the very principles that make academic inquiry valuable.

The decline of the humanities and social sciences has been a major casualty of this trend. These disciplines, which include history, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, and literature, are often viewed as elitist or politically left-leaning, and thus subject to attack by conservative critics who prefer a more utilitarian and economically driven education system. Programs in history and the humanities have been increasingly underfunded and undervalued, particularly in state schools, as the demand for vocational programs and STEM degrees (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) has surged. This shift away from critical analysis of human culture, society, and history may have long-term consequences for society’s ability to confront complex global challenges, as these fields are essential to understanding the historical context of political, social, and economic crises.

Furthermore, subjects like critical race theory and gender studies have become lightning rods for conservative attacks on higher education. Critics argue that these fields promote divisive ideologies and undermine national unity, while supporters argue that they offer critical insights into the structures of inequality and power in modern society. The backlash against these disciplines reflects a broader cultural rejection of intellectualism—one that sees scholarship as inherently biased and politically charged, rather than objective and necessary for understanding the world.

This erosion of the humanities and social sciences, alongside a growing disdain for intellectualism, threatens the intellectual foundation of American democracy. Universities, which have traditionally been spaces for critical thought, interdisciplinary exploration, and the fostering of informed citizenship, risk becoming ideological battlegrounds where the pursuit of knowledge is subordinated to political agendas. In the long term, this could result in a generation less capable of engaging in thoughtful, reasoned debate about the nation's most pressing issues, ultimately weakening democratic institutions and the capacity for the U.S. to lead on the global stage.

The Paranoia and Uncritical Support for Police, Mass Incarceration, and Lack of Due Process

Another disturbing trend within the move to the right in higher education is the rising paranoia that underpins much of the conservative political discourse on campus. A growing fear of left-wing influence, social change, and external threats to traditional values has led to a distrust of institutions such as the media, academia, and the government. This paranoia has become a driving force behind conservative student groups, with their rhetoric often centered on an exaggerated fear of cultural and ideological warfare.

This sense of paranoia also extends to issues of law enforcement and criminal justice. Conservatives have increasingly positioned themselves as staunch defenders of the police, often failing to acknowledge the systemic issues of police violence and mass incarceration that disproportionately affect marginalized communities. In many cases, this has led to an uncritical view of the police and the criminal justice system, overlooking the need for reform and the widespread calls for accountability.

The rise of this uncritical approach, paired with growing distrust in institutions of justice, has serious consequences for higher education’s ability to foster meaningful dialogue about these pressing issues. Universities that fail to engage in critical discussions about mass incarceration, police brutality, and the lack of due process risk sending students into the world without the knowledge or tools necessary to address the flaws within the U.S. justice system.

The lack of due process for many accused individuals, particularly in the context of racial and socio-economic inequalities, remains a fundamental issue that is frequently overlooked in right-wing political discourse. Instead of confronting the structural issues in policing and the judicial system, some conservative groups have opted for a rhetoric that places an overwhelming emphasis on law and order, often at the expense of basic civil liberties.

By failing to address the flaws in the system, conservative movements within higher education inadvertently perpetuate a cycle of injustice and inequality, undermining the democratic principles of fairness and accountability.

The Threat to American Democracy and Global Power

In this context, the move to the right within higher education could signal a deeper crisis for the future of American democracy and its place on the global stage. A shift toward conservative ideologies at universities, coupled with efforts to limit academic freedom and increase ideological control over education, could erode the very foundations of democratic governance. The core principles of democracy—such as free speech, the rule of law, and respect for individual rights—rely on open inquiry, the free exchange of ideas, and a commitment to evidence-based reasoning.

If U.S. higher education increasingly becomes a tool for political socialization rather than a space for independent thought, the future of U.S. democracy could be at risk. A populace raised on narrow ideological frameworks—whether left or right—will lack the critical thinking skills necessary for civic engagement, informed voting, and democratic participation. This, in turn, could erode the strength of U.S. institutions and the nation’s ability to adapt to global challenges.

In the context of the U.S.'s status as a global superpower, this ideological shift could also undermine its ability to lead in international diplomacy, science, technology, and economic innovation. The U.S. has traditionally led the world in fostering innovation, research, and academic collaboration. However, as conservative ideologies increasingly dominate American academia, it risks isolating itself from the rest of the world, particularly in areas like climate science, social justice, and global trade. A nation that turns inward and prioritizes conservative ideologies at the expense of international cooperation risks diminishing its own democratic values and its power as a global leader.


Wednesday, April 30, 2025

HELU's Wall-to-Wall and Coast-to-Coast Report – April 2025 (Higher Ed Labor United)

 


Higher Ed Labor United Banner

April 2025 HELU Chair’s Message – May Day Strong

From Levin Kim, HELU Chair
Over the first 100 days of the Trump Administration, higher ed workers from coast to coast have been fighting back against attacks on critical lifesaving research, on immigrant workers, on education and research in the public interest. We’re in the fight of our lives, for our work, our communities, and our future. 

Despite alarming news on the daily—from students and workers removed from our campuses, firings, program closures, government intervention in classroom curriculum, and brazen attacks on academic freedom—we refuse to be immobilised into inaction because we know a better world is possible if we fight for it. We’re standing up for the future of higher ed by building a wall-to-wall, coast-to-coast movement of workers ready to organize, to fight, and to win. Now is the time for coalition-building, for moving your coworkers to take action together, and getting out in the streets. Find and attend a May Day event near you tomorrow, and stay tuned for more ways to take action. 
 
Learn more and find a May 1 event near you

Solidarity Asks

From the HELU Blog:

Visa Revocations at Binghamton University Reflect Broader National Crackdown

Over 1,000 international students across more than 170 colleges and universities in at least 40 states have reportedly had their visas revoked. The administration’s actions have often been sudden and lacking clear explanations, leading to confusion and fear within academic communities. As the situation continues to evolve, it is imperative for academic institutions and communities to remain vigilant and supportive of international students, faculty, and staff. The potential for further visa revocations and the broader implications for academic freedom and free speech necessitate a collective response to uphold the values of higher education... Read more.
 

Delegates: Think about running for HELU officer positions!

HELU will be conducting elections for new leadership in at the quarterly General Assembly in November 2025. They will serve from January 2026 to January 2028. There has never been a more important time for higher ed activists from all job positions in the higher ed workforce to step up and keep the ball rolling... Read more.

Higher Ed Labor in the News

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

The Role of U.S. Higher Education in Mass Surveillance: A Cornerstone of Authoritarianism and Fascism

In the digital age, surveillance has become a pervasive aspect of daily life. It reaches far beyond the government’s watchful eye; it infiltrates our personal spaces, our interactions, and even our educational institutions. In the United States, universities and colleges—typically seen as bastions of free thought and intellectual exploration—have, over the years, quietly embraced practices that align more with authoritarian surveillance than the fostering of academic freedom. The result is an unsettling convergence of education, technology, and control that deserves close scrutiny.

The Rise of Mass Surveillance in U.S. Higher Education

Mass surveillance is not a concept confined solely to government agencies or the private sector. U.S. colleges and universities have increasingly adopted surveillance technologies, often in ways that blur the lines between student safety, security, and governmental overreach. The methods used are diverse: from sophisticated digital monitoring of online activity to the installation of cameras throughout campuses, as well as the tracking of students’ movements and behaviors.

On-Campus Surveillance

Many campuses are equipped with thousands of security cameras, often without students' knowledge of the exact extent of their monitoring. These cameras track students' movements around buildings, dorms, and even outdoor spaces. Security personnel, working alongside private contractors, have access to this footage, creating a network of real-time surveillance. Additionally, some universities have partnered with police departments or government entities to share data from campus surveillance, effectively extending the government’s reach into spaces historically seen as separate from state control.

In some instances, universities have utilized facial recognition technology—a tool that, while growing in popularity among law enforcement and private corporations, is still highly controversial due to concerns about privacy, accuracy, and racial biases. Campuses like the University of California, Berkeley, and George Washington University have implemented or explored the use of facial recognition, drawing criticism from civil rights groups who argue that such technologies contribute to surveillance regimes that disproportionately target marginalized communities.

Digital Surveillance: Monitoring Online Activity

In the realm of digital surveillance, universities have also emerged as key players. The rapid digitization of academic spaces has made it easier for educational institutions to monitor and record students' online activities, including emails, internet browsing habits, and even participation in online discussions. These tools, ostensibly designed to protect students from online threats or cheating, can also be used to track the political views or social connections of students and faculty members.

University systems that monitor students' academic behavior are often integrated with third-party services that collect vast amounts of data. Companies like Google, which provide software for research and communication, have been instrumental in creating environments where personal data can be easily harvested and stored. As a result, students and faculty members are under constant scrutiny, even if they are unaware of the depth of data being collected on them.

Off-Campus Surveillance and Law Enforcement

While much of the surveillance happens on university grounds, the cooperation between educational institutions and law enforcement extends far beyond campus boundaries. Many universities share information with federal agencies like the FBI or local police departments, creating a synergy of surveillance that goes beyond the walls of academia. This collaboration is often justified as part of maintaining national security or preventing crimes, but it carries profound implications for privacy and civil liberties.

After the 9/11 attacks, for example, universities in the U.S. were encouraged to collaborate with federal intelligence agencies under the auspices of the USA PATRIOT Act and other anti-terrorism measures. This led to the surveillance of students’ political activities, associations, and even participation in protests. While much of this occurred covertly, the ramifications were far-reaching, particularly for marginalized groups who found themselves disproportionately surveilled due to their activism.

Surveillance of International Students: A First Step Toward Widespread Control

One of the most chilling aspects of surveillance on U.S. campuses is the specific targeting of international students. Historically, international students have been a vulnerable demographic in the context of surveillance and control. This began in earnest post-9/11, when the U.S. government imposed stricter regulations on foreign students, requiring universities to report on students' status, academic performance, and even their physical locations.

The Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) was established to track international students in real-time, linking student data to immigration and law enforcement agencies. While this system was presented as a means of ensuring national security, it effectively treated international students as suspects, placing them under heightened scrutiny. Universities, in turn, became instruments of surveillance, forced to comply with federal mandates to report any changes in a student's enrollment status, academic performance, or even the duration of their stay in the U.S.

For international students, this surveillance has been particularly invasive, as their movements—whether related to academic matters or personal lives—are constantly monitored by both their institutions and government entities. The stigma of being under the microscope contributes to a sense of alienation and powerlessness. It also encourages conformity, making it difficult for international students to freely express political or ideological dissent for fear of jeopardizing their academic status or immigration status.

The Threat of TPUSA’s Professor Watchlist

Another troubling element of surveillance within higher education is the growing trend of surveillance outside official university systems. Conservative student groups, particularly Turning Point USA (TPUSA), have taken it upon themselves to monitor and track the activities of professors whose political views they deem “liberal” or “left-wing.” One of TPUSA’s most controversial initiatives has been the creation of the Professor Watchlist, which compiles and publicly names professors accused of engaging in “liberal indoctrination” or promoting “liberal agendas.”

While TPUSA claims the Professor Watchlist is a tool to expose bias in academia, its purpose appears to be less about fostering academic debate and more about intimidating faculty members and curbing academic freedom. Professors listed on the watchlist are often subjected to harassment, threats, and, in some cases, professional repercussions, as conservative groups or donors seek to pressure universities into disciplining or firing faculty. The Watchlist represents a form of extrajudicial surveillance—non-governmental in origin but with highly political aims.

The real danger of such initiatives lies in their ability to undermine the independence of higher education. It is not just the professors listed who are impacted, but the entire academic community. Faculty members may begin to self-censor, avoiding controversial or politically sensitive topics for fear of being targeted, and students may find their ability to engage in free inquiry increasingly stifled.

The Professor Watchlist serves as a reminder that surveillance of academic institutions is not just the work of government agencies or private corporations; it is also deeply politicized, with various ideological groups using the tools of surveillance to exert control over education and the intellectual freedoms that it should represent.

Little Resistance: The Silence of Academia

Despite these troubling developments, resistance within academia has been minimal. Universities, which are supposed to serve as protectors of free speech, intellectual diversity, and civil liberties, have largely failed to challenge the growing surveillance apparatus both on and off their campuses. This silence is not without reason—many academic institutions have willingly participated in these surveillance efforts, citing concerns over campus security, student safety, and the desire to combat terrorism.

Additionally, many students and faculty members have become desensitized to surveillance. A generation raised in the digital age, where privacy is increasingly an afterthought and constant connectivity is the norm, may not fully grasp the implications of mass surveillance. Those who do speak out often find themselves at odds with institutional priorities or are silenced by threats of punishment, surveillance of their own activities, or other forms of retaliation.

The fear of retribution has also led to a chilling effect on dissent. Students who voice political opinions, especially those that challenge the status quo, may find themselves under increased scrutiny. This environment creates a culture where conformity reigns, and open discourse is stifled, not necessarily by overt repression, but by the omnipresent surveillance that discourages any behavior that might be deemed "out of line."

Mass Surveillance as a Tool of Authoritarianism and Fascism

The convergence of surveillance practices on college campuses with broader state interests should not be dismissed as incidental. Throughout history, mass surveillance has been a hallmark of authoritarian and fascist regimes. From Stalinist Russia to Nazi Germany, the power to monitor and control individuals through surveillance has been a tool used by oppressive governments to stifle dissent, control behavior, and consolidate power.

In a fascist regime, surveillance serves not just as a means of security, but as a tool of indoctrination and social control. The existence of surveillance constantly reminds individuals that they are being watched, creating a pervasive sense of fear and self-censorship. The same mechanism is increasingly visible in today’s U.S. higher education system, where students and faculty members may unconsciously internalize the need to comply with institutional norms, which are often shaped by external pressures from governmental and corporate entities.

The Implications for Democracy

The implications of this trend are far-reaching. When educational institutions no longer stand as a safe space for the free exchange of ideas, when they themselves become complicit in the surveillance of their own communities, it erodes the very foundation of democratic society. Free thought and intellectual exploration—the core tenets of higher education—cannot thrive in an atmosphere of constant monitoring and fear.

Mass surveillance on campuses also reinforces systemic inequalities. As surveillance technologies disproportionately affect marginalized groups—whether due to racial profiling, political dissent, or nationality—it contributes to a broader structure of control that undermines the principles of equal treatment and justice. In a society where the surveillance state extends into universities, it’s not hard to imagine a future where academic freedom becomes a thing of the past, with institutions serving instead as instruments of political and corporate control.

Conclusion

The role of U.S. higher education in the rise of mass surveillance—both on and off-campus—raises serious concerns about privacy, freedom, and the future of democratic values. Universities, which once stood as symbols of intellectual autonomy, are now complicit in the surveillance mechanisms that have come to define authoritarian and fascist regimes. The lack of widespread resistance from within academia only exacerbates the situation, highlighting the need for a renewed commitment to the values of free thought and privacy.

If we are to preserve the integrity of higher education as a space for critical thinking and dissent, we must confront the creeping normalization of surveillance in these institutions. It’s time for students, faculty, and administrators to take a stand, not just against the overt surveillance on campus, but against the creeping authoritarianism that it represents in the broader context of our society. The fight for academic freedom and privacy is not just a fight for the rights of students and educators—it’s a fight for the soul of democracy itself.

Tuesday, April 29, 2025

Department of Veterans Affairs Delays Answering Questions on GI Bill Complaints

 


Trends and Challenges in Higher Education Non-Exempt Staff Workforce: Insights from CUPA-HR's April 2025 Report

The landscape of higher education staffing is undergoing significant transformations, as highlighted in the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR) April 2025 report, The Non-Exempt Higher Education Staff Workforce: Trends in Composition, Size, and Pay Equity. This comprehensive study delves into the evolving composition, size, and pay equity of non-exempt staff within U.S. colleges and universities from the 2016–17 to 2023–24 academic years.

The Higher Education Inquirer has been reporting on the College Meltdown since 2016, tracking the unraveling of institutional stability across much of U.S. higher education. Our coverage has especially focused on declining college enrollment at for-profit colleges, community colleges, small state universities, and private colleges and universities—sectors hit hardest by demographic shifts, rising costs, and growing public skepticism about the value of a college degree. The CUPA-HR report adds another layer to this narrative, highlighting how the backbone of campus operations—non-exempt staff—are being affected.

Declining Workforce Numbers

The report reveals a troubling trend: the non-exempt staff workforce has steadily declined over the past seven years. Full-time non-exempt positions dropped by 9%, while part-time roles fell by 8%. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated this decline, with full-time jobs shrinking by 3.3% and part-time roles plummeting by 17.2%.

Composition of the Workforce

Despite the shrinking workforce, non-exempt staff still made up 28% of the higher education labor force in 2023–24. This is significantly lower than in the overall U.S. economy, where non-exempt positions represent more than half of all jobs. These roles—custodians, electricians, administrative assistants, and dining hall workers—are essential to day-to-day campus functions.

Pay Equity Disparities

CUPA-HR also highlights ongoing inequities in compensation. Women and people of color remain underrepresented in the highest-paying non-exempt roles and often earn less than White male colleagues doing similar work. Pay disparities are especially pronounced for women over the age of 42 and for professionals of color at wealthier institutions—institutions that tend to employ more diverse staff, but pay them less.

Institutional Implications

These findings raise urgent questions about sustainability, morale, and service quality on campuses already under strain. As colleges confront declining enrollments, shrinking budgets, and demands for greater equity and accountability, the erosion of the non-exempt workforce risks compounding the challenges. Institutions must consider robust equity audits, fair compensation practices, and inclusive hiring and retention strategies.

Conclusion

CUPA-HR’s April 2025 study is a stark reminder that the College Meltdown is not only about enrollment and finances, but also about the people who keep campuses running. The non-exempt staff, often invisible in strategic planning discussions, are central to the student experience and institutional mission. Their declining numbers and ongoing inequities reflect deeper systemic problems that higher education leaders can no longer afford to ignore.

For more insights, visit the full report: The Non-Exempt Higher Education Staff Workforce: Trends in Composition, Size, and Pay Equity.

Monday, April 28, 2025

Maximus AidVantage

[Image of AidVantage operations in Greenville, Texas. Note the barbed wire fence.]

The recent decision to have the Small Business Administration (SBA) take over the federal student loan portfolio has sent shockwaves through the world of education finance. As the SBA — an agency traditionally focused on supporting small businesses — begins to manage a multi-billion dollar portfolio of student loans, borrowers, consumer protection advocates, and financial experts alike are left to question what this transition means for the future of loan servicing, borrower protections, and higher education financing.

At the heart of this shift is the role of Maximus AidVantage, one of the major student loan servicers handling federal loans. Maximus has already come under scrutiny for its inefficiency, poor customer service, and mishandling of crucial borrower programs, such as Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans. The company’s track record has led to widespread frustration, with many borrowers reporting significant issues, including misinformation, lost paperwork, and mistakes that have placed them at risk of financial hardship.

Yet, despite these concerns, Maximus has maintained its position at the helm of federal student loan servicing. Its CEO, Bruce Caswell, has been compensated handsomely for overseeing the company’s role in this controversial space. According to recent financial reports, Caswell’s total compensation has included a base salary of over $1.3 million, with total compensation often exceeding $8 million when accounting for bonuses, stock options, and other forms of remuneration. This high pay, especially in light of the company’s poor performance in customer service and loan servicing, raises questions about the priorities of both the company and the federal government, which continues to entrust Maximus with managing the finances of millions of borrowers.

The Shift to the SBA: A Lack of Expertise

The most immediate concern surrounding the SBA’s takeover of student loan management is its lack of expertise in this field. The SBA’s core mission has been to assist small businesses, offering loan guarantees and financial support to promote economic growth. While it is well-equipped to manage business loans, the agency has no experience dealing with the unique and complex needs of student loan borrowers. Federal student loans involve intricate repayment plans, borrower protections, and specialized programs like PSLF, all of which require a deep understanding of the educational sector and the financial struggles of students and graduates.

Transferring such an important and complex responsibility to the SBA without a clear plan for adaptation could lead to mismanagement, inefficiencies, and disruptions for millions of borrowers. The SBA simply isn’t set up to handle issues like loan forgiveness, income-driven repayment plans, and the variety of special accommodations that are necessary for student borrowers. If the SBA isn’t adequately staffed or resourced to take on these new responsibilities, students could be left in the lurch, facing delays, confusion, and even errors in their loan servicing.

A Confusing Transition for Borrowers

For those already dealing with the intricacies of federal student loans, this transition to the SBA is likely to create a significant amount of confusion. Student loan borrowers rely on clear communication, accurate account management, and timely assistance when navigating repayment plans. The Department of Education has long been the agency responsible for ensuring that these programs are managed effectively, but with the SBA taking over, borrowers may face new systems, new contacts, and, potentially, a lack of clarity about their loan status.

One of the biggest risks in this transition is the potential disruption of critical loan repayment programs, such as PSLF, which allows public service workers to have their loans forgiven after ten years of payments. These programs require careful management to ensure that borrowers meet the necessary qualifications. The SBA is not accustomed to handling such programs and may struggle to maintain the same level of efficiency and accuracy, especially if the agency does not prioritize dedicated support for student loan borrowers.

Diminished Consumer Protections

Perhaps the most concerning outcome of the SBA taking over student loans is the potential erosion of consumer protections. The Department of Education has a specific mandate to protect borrowers, which includes holding loan servicers accountable for mishandling accounts and ensuring transparency in loan servicing practices. The SBA, however, has never been tasked with such consumer-focused regulations, and its shift to managing student loans raises concerns that borrower rights might not be adequately enforced.

For example, the SBA may not have the resources or inclination to monitor loan servicers like Maximus closely, allowing them to continue engaging in deceptive practices without fear of regulatory repercussions. The agency might also be less likely to step in when borrowers face issues such as misapplied payments, incorrect information about forgiveness programs, or poorly managed accounts. With the SBA’s focus on business rather than consumer welfare, student loan borrowers may find themselves facing more hurdles without the protections that the Department of Education once provided.

The Impact on Repayment and Forgiveness Programs

Another pressing issue is the potential disruption of repayment and forgiveness programs under SBA oversight. Programs like Income-Driven Repayment (IDR), designed to help borrowers pay off their loans based on their income, require careful management and regular updates. Similarly, the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program is highly specific and requires rigorous tracking of borrowers’ payments and work history to ensure they qualify for forgiveness after ten years.

If the SBA is not adequately equipped to handle these specialized programs, borrowers might find themselves in a precarious position, especially if their loans are mismanaged or if they are denied forgiveness due to administrative errors. The confusion caused by the transition could delay or even derail borrowers’ efforts to achieve loan forgiveness, leaving them stuck with debt for longer than expected.

The Role of Maximus: Financial Incentives Amidst Failure

Amidst the uncertainty of this transition, Maximus continues to play a key role in servicing the federal student loan portfolio. Yet, despite its persistent failures in managing accounts and borrower relations, Maximus has remained highly profitable, with Bruce Caswell’s executive compensation reflecting this success in terms of revenue but not in terms of customer satisfaction.

Maximus’s reported $8 million in total compensation for Caswell, despite the company’s history of customer complaints, raises serious questions about priorities. While Maximus rakes in millions from servicing federal loans, borrowers are left to deal with the consequences of mistakes, misinformation, and poor service. In a system where the stakes are incredibly high for borrowers, this disparity between executive pay and customer service is concerning, especially in light of the SBA’s takeover, which promises more uncertainty.

Adding to the controversy, Maximus has also been involved in labor disputes with the Communications Workers of America (CWA), its workers' union. These disputes, which have centered on issues such as wages, benefits, and working conditions, further complicate the company’s already tarnished reputation. Workers have accused Maximus of engaging in unfair labor practices and failing to adequately support employees who are tasked with assisting borrowers. If these labor disputes continue to affect employee morale and productivity, it could lead to even worse service for borrowers who are already dealing with a complicated and frustrating loan servicing process. The combination of poor customer service, labor unrest, and executive compensation that seems out of sync with the company’s performance paints a troubling picture for the future of student loan management under Maximus.

The Threat of Reduced Loan Forgiveness and IDR Plans

Adding to the turmoil surrounding the future of student loans is the growing effort by the U.S. government to reduce or even eliminate key student loan forgiveness programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans. These programs were designed to provide crucial relief for borrowers working in public service or those struggling with debt relative to their income. However, recent reports suggest that the government may look to reduce eligibility for these programs, impose stricter requirements, or completely eliminate them altogether as part of broader fiscal policy adjustments.

The removal of or reductions to these programs would leave borrowers with fewer avenues to manage their debt, potentially increasing default rates and extending the time it takes for borrowers to repay their loans. For individuals in public service jobs or those facing financial hardship, these changes would have a devastating impact on their ability to achieve financial stability and pay down their student loans. If the SBA, with its lack of focus on education finance, inherits this responsibility without reinforcing these programs, borrowers might find themselves in a far worse position than ever before.

Furthermore, this reduction in borrower protections and streamlining of repayment options may also be part of a broader strategy to push more borrowers into private loan options, which could further exacerbate financial hardship for those who are already struggling. With private loans often carrying higher interest rates, less favorable repayment terms, and fewer options for deferral or forgiveness, such a shift would mark a significant pivot towards privatization, benefiting financial institutions while leaving borrowers with even fewer protections and much higher costs.

A Plan to Push Consumers Toward Private Loans?

Many experts are beginning to question whether the government’s plans for overhauling student loan servicing are part of a larger agenda to move borrowers toward private loans. By reducing or eliminating federal loan protections, forgiveness programs, and income-driven repayment options, the government may be attempting to create a vacuum in which private lenders can step in and offer alternative (and likely more expensive) financing options.

This push toward privatization could significantly increase profits for private lenders while making it harder for borrowers to repay their loans. With private loans lacking many of the protections and flexible repayment options offered by federal loans, such a shift could result in higher default rates and greater financial instability for borrowers, particularly for those with already high debt levels.

Conclusion: A New Era of Uncertainty

The transition of student loan servicing to the Small Business Administration represents a significant shift in the federal student loan system, one that could lead to inefficiencies, confusion, and a reduction in protections for borrowers. With agencies like Maximus AidVantage continuing to profit from loan servicing despite failing borrowers, ongoing labor disputes, and a focus on executive compensation over customer service, and the SBA stepping into a complex arena with limited experience, the future of student loan servicing seems fraught with challenges.

The push to reduce or eliminate key student loan forgiveness programs like PSLF and IDR only adds to the uncertainty, leaving millions of borrowers facing a potentially more difficult future. Moreover, the possibility of moving consumers toward private loans with fewer protections and harsher terms would deepen the financial struggles of many borrowers. This move underscores the importance of effective oversight and the need for federal agencies to prioritize the well-being of borrowers over financial interests. The student loan system should be about more than just revenue generation — it should be about supporting borrowers and ensuring that they can achieve financial freedom, not be left trapped in a cycle of debt and frustration. Without proper management, this new era of student loan servicing risks deepening the crisis for millions of Americans who are already struggling to keep up with their education-related debts.

International Students Increasingly Wary of Study in US

Since Donald Trump returned to the U.S. presidency in January 2025, international perceptions of American higher education have shifted dramatically. Around the globe, students, educators, and policymakers are reassessing the value, safety, and accessibility of studying or collaborating with U.S. institutions. Here is a snapshot of specific reactions from different parts of the world.

Growing Caution Among Prospective International Students

According to a Keystone Education Group survey, about 42% of international students said they are less likely to consider studying in the U.S. Concerns about visa restrictions, political instability, and potential discrimination have driven many to explore alternative destinations such as Canada, Australia, and Germany.

China: Escalating Distrust and Diversion

Chinese students and families, once the largest international cohort in U.S. higher education, are increasingly turning away from American universities. Recent visa revocations, national security allegations, and rising U.S.-China tensions have severely impacted perceptions. A Reuters report highlights that many Chinese students now prefer pursuing studies in the United Kingdom, Italy, or remaining within China's expanding higher education system.

United Kingdom: An Opportunistic Shift

British universities are actively courting students and researchers who might otherwise have chosen the U.S. In response to Trump's policies, institutions like Oxford and Cambridge are emphasizing their commitment to academic freedom, diversity, and international collaboration. The UK government has also streamlined visa processes to attract displaced academic talent.

Norway: Academic Haven Building

Norway has launched a new program aimed at luring top researchers away from American institutions. Framed as a defense of academic freedom and critical scientific research, this initiative offers generous funding packages, stable working environments, and a clear commitment to maintaining the autonomy of scholarship. Norwegian universities view this moment as an opportunity to boost their global standing.

European Union (General): Retreat and Redirection

Across the broader European Union, there is a sense of retreat from American partnerships. Universities in Germany, France, and the Netherlands are seeing increased interest from international students previously targeting the U.S. Meanwhile, collaborative research initiatives are pivoting towards intra-European or Asia-Europe partnerships, avoiding U.S.-centric agreements.

Latin America: Disillusionment and Regional Investment

Students and academics in Latin American nations such as Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia are increasingly disillusioned with the U.S. as an educational destination. Instead, there is growing investment in regional university systems and partnerships with European institutions. For many, the perception of an unwelcoming and politically unstable United States has made alternatives more attractive.

Australia and Canada: Beneficiaries of American Decline

Australia and Canada continue to benefit from the shifting landscape. Both countries are marketing themselves as safe, progressive, and welcoming alternatives to the U.S. for higher education. Universities in Melbourne, Toronto, Vancouver, and Sydney report record numbers of applications from international students.

Middle East: Caution and Cultural Shifts

In Gulf nations like the UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, caution dominates discussions around sending students to the U.S. Political tensions and concerns about racial profiling have led to a pivot toward local branch campuses of Western universities and institutions in Europe and Asia.

Conclusion

The "Trump 2.0" era has fundamentally altered the international image of American higher education. While elite institutions may weather the storm to some extent, the broader sector faces declining international enrollments, shrinking influence in global research, and a steady erosion of the "American Dream" narrative. In this moment of geopolitical and educational reconfiguration, U.S. higher education's dominance is no longer taken for granted.


Sources: