

A new, high-quality path to free college credit was launched in 2017.
The goal of the program, dubbed “Freshman Year for Free,” is to make
college more accessible and affordable for high school students, college
students and adult learners, including active duty military personnel,
their families, and veterans.
Modern States, the New York-based charitable organization behind the
effort, has funded production of online courses taught by college
professors. The courses prepare students for introductory College Level
Examination Program (CLEP) exams in Economics, Sociology, Algebra, and
other areas.
The CLEP exams, administered by the College Board, are accepted for
credit by more than 2,900 colleges and universities. Modern States is
partnering with high schools and colleges that are making students aware
of the opportunity.
This is the first time there have been courses (see list below)
taught by top quality college professors for CLEP subjects. Also, Modern
States is paying the CLEP exam fee and scheduling fee for students who
enroll in the courses and take the exams. The benefit for participating
institutions is that this creates a free on-ramp to college that
facilitates learning and earning credits.
Modern States will pay for you to take the CLEP exam. After you complete the coursework and practice questions, request a CLEP voucher
code from the Modern States website. There are no prerequisites for the
32 courses that are available, and all of them are self-paced. Some of
the courses stem from a partnership between Modern States and edX, the
online education platform created by Harvard and MIT.
Modern States Education Alliance™ offers free, high-quality online
courses taught by college professors that prepare you for the CLEP
exams, which are well-established and widely-accepted. Solid performance
on the exams (each participating college decides what scores you need
for credit) can earn you college credits and enable you to save tuition
dollars. You can take one course or many; if you do well on eight exams,
you can potentially earn Freshman Year for Free™.
Sign up today by clicking here – it’s free!

Higher education is experiencing transformative shifts as institutions respond to societal, economic, and technological changes. This year is set to bring new opportunities and challenges. We’re always keeping a pulse on the industry and where it’s headed so we can stay proactive and prepared –– ready to support our partners through whatever conditions they’re facing.
The pace of mergers and consolidations among smaller colleges is expected to accelerate in 2025, according to Collegis Education CEO Kim Fahey. With financial pressures and declining enrollment, many institutions will view mergers as a strategic alternative to closure. But these transitions are anything but simple.
“Mergers involve unique technology requirements and complex data management challenges,” Fahey explains. Successfully integrating applications, systems, and hardware requires expert guidance. Higher ed leaders will look to partner with experienced organizations to help navigate these intricacies.
The information security landscape is becoming increasingly intricate. With 21 comprehensive state privacy laws, alongside European Union (EU) regulations, federal rules, and Title IV requirements, compliance challenges are mounting.
“Smaller schools often lack the experience and qualifications to manage these threats,” notes Dr. Jason Nairn, CISSP, Collegis VP of Information Technology. Cyberattacks, like phishing and social engineering, are relentless. In 2025, institutions must prioritize more robust cybersecurity measures, leveraging external partnerships and security tools to protect sensitive data.
Cloud migration will take center stage as institutions transition away from outdated, on-campus systems. While many schools still rely on highly customized platforms, which limits their ability to adopt or migrate to more modern technology, the adaptability and scalability of cloud platforms are simply too compelling to ignore.
Furthermore, technology infrastructures must be sufficiently modernized in order to capitalize on emerging tech innovations in AI and predictive analysis. This process can’t happen overnight –– it’s an evolution, according to Fahey.
“Cloud migrations take 18+ months, so schools need to act now,” she emphasizes. An institution-wide commitment to digital transformation will not only modernize operations but also position institutions to stay competitive in an increasingly tech-driven environment.
Financial constraints will push smaller schools toward shared services and consortium models to access the technology and expertise they need at a manageable scale. These models allow institutions to pool resources and reduce costs but require significant change management, according to Jeff Certain, VP of Solution Development at Collegis.
“This will require schools to standardize and make some concessions,” Certain explains. “This could pose a challenge, but they may not have an option.” Institutions must embrace these shifts to remain sustainable while navigating limited budgets.
Programs aligning with workforce needs will gain momentum in 2025. Alternative credentials like microcredentials and certificates will become more prominent, offering shorter, career-oriented pathways for learners.
“Institutions will increasingly recognize and credit learning outside the classroom, exploring more direct pathways into the workforce,” predicts Dr. Tracy Chapman, Chief Academic Officer for Collegis. This reflects growing demand for flexible, career-focused education that meets student and employer expectations.
It is not just colleges and universities facing consolidation. Ed tech companies and services providers are also reshaping the landscape with their own mergers and acquisitions. While these changes may offer schools more comprehensive solutions, they may not necessarily align with institutional objectives.
“Some recent acquisitions have led to poorer customer experiences,” Fahey observes. Institutions must carefully evaluate new partnerships to ensure they will deliver meaningful improvements.
With the “enrollment cliff” looming, institutions must double down on maintaining their existing student base as a key to sustainability. Purposeful and cost-effective retention strategies will play a pivotal role in maintaining financial health, as retaining current students is often more cost-effective than recruiting new ones.
“Retention strategies build stronger, more loyal communities,” says Patrick Green, VP of Enrollment Strategy. Forward-looking schools have perceived the importance of fostering a sense of belonging across the student lifecycle and are providing robust support networks that improve student persistence and satisfaction.
Students and families are increasingly demanding clear ROI from their education. As a result, institutions will need to demonstrate how their programs lead directly to employment and career advancement.
“Building relationships with regional industries and showcasing job placement rates will be essential,” advises Tanya Pankratz, AVP of Marketing at Collegis. Marketing efforts will need to start highlighting tangible outcomes (e.g., alumni success stories, job placement rates, and employer partnerships) to win over prospective students.
AI and other emerging technologies will revolutionize higher education operations. From enrollment management and personalized marketing to virtual campus tours using augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR), technology has the means to dramatically enhance the student experience –– or wreak technical havoc if data, platforms and tools are misaligned.
“AI-driven tools make personalization more accessible, but the strategy remains critical,” notes Dan Antonson, AVP of Data and Analytics. Institutions must invest in data infrastructure to fully harness these advancements in order to build and maintain a competitive edge.
Higher ed institutions are increasingly recognizing that they don’t need to own the entire value chain. In 2025, strategic partnerships will play a more prominent role.
“Institutions will double down on their core mission of education and seek out partners to support other critical functions,” Dr. Chapman explains. These partnerships provide access to technology, expertise, and resources, allowing schools to focus on what they do best — educating students.
As evident in this compilation of higher ed trends, the landscape is set for significant change in 2025 and beyond. Institutions that proactively address these trends will be well-positioned to navigate challenges and seize opportunities. By embracing digital transformation, fostering strategic partnerships, and adopting value-driven approaches, schools can ensure long-term success in an evolving marketplace.
Excited about the opportunities that lie ahead? Collegis Education has the experience and expertise to guide you through any twists and turns you may face. We’ll help you stay on the leading edge instead of chasing trends. Connect with us and let’s start creating solutions together.

As the 2025 legislative calendar begins, FIRE is preparing for lawmakers at both the state and federal levels to introduce a deluge of bills targeting artificial intelligence.
The First Amendment applies to artificial intelligence just as it does to other expressive technologies. Like the printing press, the camera, and the internet, AI can be used as an expressive tool — a technological advance that helps us communicate with one another and generate knowledge. As FIRE Executive Vice President Nico Perrino argued in The Los Angeles Times last month: “The Constitution shouldn’t be rewritten for every new communications technology.”
We again remind legislators that existing laws — cabined by the narrow, well-defined exceptions to the First Amendment’s broad protection — already address the vast majority of harms legislatures may seek to counter in the coming year. Laws prohibiting fraud, forgery, discrimination, and defamation, for example, apply regardless of how the unlawful activity is ultimately carried out. Liability for unlawful acts properly falls on the perpetrator of those acts, not the informational or communicative tools they use.
Some legislative initiatives seeking to govern the use of AI raise familiar First Amendment problems. For example, regulatory proposals that would require “watermarks” on artwork created by AI or mandate disclaimers on content generated by AI violate the First Amendment by compelling speech. FIRE has argued against these kinds of efforts to regulate the use of AI, and we will continue to do so — just as we have fought against government attempts to compel speech in school, on campus, or online.
Rather than compelling disclaimers or imposing content-based restrictions on AI-generated expression, legislators should remember the law already protects against defamation, fraud, and other illegal conduct.
Lawmakers have also sought to regulate or even criminalize the use of AI-generated content in election-related communications. But courts have been wary of legislative attempts to control AI’s output when political speech is implicated. Following a First Amendment challenge from a satirist who uses AI to generate parodies of political figures, for example, a federal district court recently enjoined a California statute aimed at “deepfakes” that regulated “materially deceptive” election-related content.
Content-based restrictions like California’s law require strict judicial scrutiny, no matter how the expression is created. As the federal court noted, the constitutional protections “safeguarding the people’s right to criticize government and government officials apply even in the new technological age when media may be digitally altered.” So while lawmakers might harbor “a well-founded fear of a digitally manipulated media landscape,” the court explained, “this fear does not give legislators unbridled license to bulldoze over the longstanding tradition of critique, parody, and satire protected by the First Amendment.”
FIRE offers an analysis of frequently asked questions about artificial intelligence and its possible implications for free speech and the First Amendment.
Other legislative proposals threaten the First Amendment by imposing burdens directly on the developers of AI models. In the coming months, for example, Texas lawmakers will consider the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act, or TRAIGA, a sweeping bill that would impose liability on developers, distributors, and deployers of AI systems that may introduce a risk of “algorithmic discrimination,” including by private actors. The bill vests broad regulatory authority in a newly created state “Artificial Intelligence Council” and imposes steep compliance costs. TRAIGA compels developers to publish regular risk reports, a requirement that will raise First Amendment concerns when applied to an AI model’s expressive output or the use of AI as a tool to facilitate protected expression. Last year, a federal court held a similar reporting requirement imposed on social media platforms was likely unconstitutional.
TRAIGA’s provisions incentivize AI developers to handicap their models to avoid any possibility of offering recommendations that some might deem discriminatory or simply offensive — even if doing so curtails the models’ usefulness or capabilities. Addressing unlawful discrimination is an important legislative aim, and lawmakers are obligated to ensure we all benefit from the equal protection of the law. At the same time, our decades of work defending student and faculty rights has left FIRE all too familiar with the chilling effect on speech that results from expansive or arbitrary interpretations of anti-discrimination law on campus. We will oppose poorly crafted legislative efforts that would functionally build the same chill into artificial intelligence systems.
The sprawling reach of legislative proposals like TRAIGA run headlong into the expressive rights of the people building and using AI models. Rather than compelling disclaimers or imposing content-based restrictions on AI-generated expression, legislators should remember the law already protects against defamation, fraud, and other illegal conduct. And rather than preemptively saddling developers with broad liability for an AI model’s possible output, lawmakers must instead examine the recourse existing laws already provide victims of discrimination against those who would use AI — or any other communicative tool — to unlawful ends.
FIRE will have more to say on the First Amendment threats presented by legislative proposals regarding AI in the weeks and months to come.

Higher education is experiencing transformative shifts as institutions respond to societal, economic, and technological changes. This year is set to bring new opportunities and challenges. We’re always keeping a pulse on the industry and where it’s headed so we can stay proactive and prepared –– ready to support our partners through whatever conditions they’re facing.
To help institutions stay ahead, we asked our team of experts to share their predictions for this year’s most impactful trends in higher education. From AI and digital transformation to new enrollment strategies, these insights highlight what’s shaping the future of higher ed— and how institutions can adapt.
The pace of mergers and consolidations among smaller colleges is expected to accelerate in 2025, according to Collegis Education CEO Kim Fahey. With financial pressures and declining enrollment, many institutions will view mergers as a strategic alternative to closure. But these transitions are anything but simple.
“Mergers involve unique technology requirements and complex data management challenges,” Fahey explains. Successfully integrating applications, systems, and hardware requires expert guidance. Higher ed leaders will look to partner with experienced organizations to help navigate these intricacies.
The information security landscape is becoming increasingly intricate. With 21 comprehensive state privacy laws, alongside European Union (EU) regulations, federal rules, and Title IV requirements, compliance challenges are mounting.
“Smaller schools often lack the experience and qualifications to manage these threats,” notes Dr. Jason Nairn, CISSP, Collegis VP of Information Technology. Cyberattacks, like phishing and social engineering, are relentless. In 2025, institutions must prioritize more robust cybersecurity measures, leveraging external partnerships and security tools to protect sensitive data.
Cloud migration will take center stage as institutions transition away from outdated, on-campus systems. While many schools still rely on highly customized platforms, which limits their ability to adopt or migrate to more modern technology, the adaptability and scalability of cloud platforms are simply too compelling to ignore.
Furthermore, technology infrastructures must be sufficiently modernized in order to capitalize on emerging tech innovations in AI and predictive analysis. This process can’t happen overnight –– it’s an evolution, according to Fahey.
“Cloud migrations take 18+ months, so schools need to act now,” she emphasizes. An institution-wide commitment to digital transformation will not only modernize operations but also position institutions to stay competitive in an increasingly tech-driven environment.
Financial constraints will push smaller schools toward shared services and consortium models to access the technology and expertise they need at a manageable scale. These models allow institutions to pool resources and reduce costs but require significant change management, according to Jeff Certain, VP of Solution Development at Collegis.
“This will require schools to standardize and make some concessions,” Certain explains. “This could pose a challenge, but they may not have an option.” Institutions must embrace these shifts to remain sustainable while navigating limited budgets.
Programs aligning with workforce needs will gain momentum in 2025. Alternative credentials like microcredentials and certificates will become more prominent, offering shorter, career-oriented pathways for learners.
“Institutions will increasingly recognize and credit learning outside the classroom, exploring more direct pathways into the workforce,” predicts Dr. Tracy Chapman, Chief Academic Officer for Collegis. This reflects growing demand for flexible, career-focused education that meets student and employer expectations.
It is not just colleges and universities facing consolidation. Ed tech companies and services providers are also reshaping the landscape with their own mergers and acquisitions. While these changes may offer schools more comprehensive solutions, they may not necessarily align with institutional objectives.
“Some recent acquisitions have led to poorer customer experiences,” Fahey observes. Institutions must carefully evaluate new partnerships to ensure they will deliver meaningful improvements.
With the “enrollment cliff” looming, institutions must double down on maintaining their existing student base as a key to sustainability. Purposeful and cost-effective retention strategies will play a pivotal role in maintaining financial health, as retaining current students is often more cost-effective than recruiting new ones.
“Retention strategies build stronger, more loyal communities,” says Patrick Green, VP of Enrollment Strategy. Forward-looking schools have perceived the importance of fostering a sense of belonging across the student lifecycle and are providing robust support networks that improve student persistence and satisfaction.
Students and families are increasingly demanding clear ROI from their education. As a result, institutions will need to demonstrate how their programs lead directly to employment and career advancement.
“Building relationships with regional industries and showcasing job placement rates will be essential,” advises Tanya Pankratz, AVP of Marketing at Collegis. Marketing efforts will need to start highlighting tangible outcomes (e.g., alumni success stories, job placement rates, and employer partnerships) to win over prospective students.
AI and other emerging technologies will revolutionize higher education operations. From enrollment management and personalized marketing to virtual campus tours using augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR), technology has the means to dramatically enhance the student experience –– or wreak technical havoc if data, platforms and tools are misaligned.
“AI-driven tools make personalization more accessible, but the strategy remains critical,” notes Dan Antonson, AVP of Data and Analytics. Institutions must invest in data infrastructure to fully harness these advancements in order to build and maintain a competitive edge.
Higher ed institutions are increasingly recognizing that they don’t need to own the entire value chain. In 2025, strategic partnerships will play a more prominent role.
“Institutions will double down on their core mission of education and seek out partners to support other critical functions,” Dr. Chapman explains. These partnerships provide access to technology, expertise, and resources, allowing schools to focus on what they do best — educating students.
As evident in this compilation of higher ed trends, the landscape is set for significant change in 2025 and beyond. Institutions that proactively address these trends will be well-positioned to navigate challenges and seize opportunities. By embracing digital transformation, fostering strategic partnerships, and adopting value-driven approaches, schools can ensure long-term success in an evolving marketplace.
Excited about the opportunities that lie ahead? Collegis Education has the experience and expertise to guide you through any twists and turns you may face. We’ll help you stay on the leading edge instead of chasing trends. Connect with us and let’s start creating solutions together.
Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.

Cornell got a jump on its New Year’s resolutions this winter, unveiling an updated version of its proposed Expressive Activity Policy just before the holiday season. On Dec. 18, the Cornell Committee on Expressive Activity released a much-improved revision of the proposed policy. This comes after FIRE and nearly 500 other organizations and individuals weighed in on an earlier draft from Oct. 30. The final say belongs to university leadership, but this update marks a significant step in the right direction.
One of the most notable changes from the Oct. 30 version is that the policy no longer requires students to schedule expressive activities through the 25Live reservation system. The October draft also limited spontaneous protests to Ho Plaza — a tiny patch of campus measuring merely one acre out of the sprawling 745-acre Ithaca campus. We criticized this provision as well as the scheduling requirement, and thankfully, the new proposal contains neither.
That’s not the only laudable change. The new policy also preserves the right to put up flyers, posters, and other expressive materials without having to identify oneself on the material. That is a critical win for students who may only feel comfortable expressing their views anonymously.
Cornell deserves praise for demonstrating its willingness to engage critics, make changes, and to honor the principle of free expression as enshrined in our Constitution.
Nor is outreach to the university required to put up material in designated posting areas. While the initial March 11 interim policy stated that approval was not required to post in designated areas, it instructed community members to “[c]ontact the applicable building coordinator or campus facilities director to find out the locations of” said areas. This effectively created a prior restraint that required students, faculty, and staff to reach out to administrators before expressing themselves. In contrast, the latest proposed policy puts the onus on personnel to “communicat[e] transparently” on where they place posting areas.
The committee rejected suggestions from several commenters to require pre-approval or notification before posting, choosing instead to uphold the principle of free speech and honor the school’s own noble legacy of political activism and public debate.
Unfortunately, the new proposal is not without its flaws. It maintains a broad definition of hostile environment harassment, reflecting and even exceeding the overbroad definition set forth by the controversial Title IX regulations enacted in 2024. These federal rules require colleges to adopt a standard for harassment that includes protected speech, and as a result of deep-seated constitutional concerns, courts have blocked their implementation in 26 states. Any further federal changes to Title IX regulations would necessitate another round of changes at Cornell.
Despite this, Cornell deserves praise for demonstrating its willingness to engage critics, make changes, and to honor the principle of free expression as enshrined in our Constitution.
FIRE will continue to call for the reform of Title IX regulations and for universities to adopt a definition of hostile environment harassment that better reflects First Amendment principles. We’ve been writing to the Cornell Committee on Expressive Activity every step of the way during the revision process, and we will continue to nudge Cornell toward making further progress. But for now, good on Big Red for locking in some solid gains before the new year even started.
If you have questions about your school’s new or existing policies, reach out to FIRE’s Policy Reform team at [email protected], and we’ll make sure you get answers. And if your school adopted policies you’re concerned about, we’re here to help you push back. You can also check out our FAQ on protests and our political speech FAQ if you’re interested in activism this spring.

by Julie Burrell | January 8, 2025
In a year marked by rapid technological advancement and evolving demands on higher ed, CUPA-HR members prioritized the human in HR. Our most-read articles of 2024 reflect this, with a focus on employee retention, the responsible use of artificial intelligence, and data-informed approaches to fostering an equitable and effective talent pipeline.
Here we’ve listed the CUPA-HR articles, resources and research that resonated most with our readers in 2024.
Last year, the use of AI became widespread on college and university campuses, transforming how HR performs many of its core functions. Higher Ed HR in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: A Human-Centered Approach introduces best practices, suggests common-sense guardrails for security, and shares advice from HR pros on how to use AI to maximize efficiency while prioritizing the human element.
For practical advice on using AI to create training scripts, learn how Colorado Community College System’s Jennifer Parker used ChatGPT to create a civility training program.
From Zero to Dashboard – Getting Your Metrics Game Up to Speed shows the continued importance of metrics in creating effective partnerships with campus constituents. In this article, the HR team at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville details their process of creating a data dashboard — without spending tens of thousands of dollars on a consultant. They’re now able to quickly and easily share insights on turnover, retirement eligibility, employee demographics, and more with campus partners, who use the information to inform strategic decisions.
Readers also expressed an interest in data about specific segments of the higher ed workforce. The Higher Education Financial Aid Workforce report — one of the most-read CUPA-HR research reports of 2024 — finds that more than half of financial aid employees are at least somewhat likely to look for other employment soon and offers recommendations for retaining these key employees. Also popular was The Higher Ed Professional Workforce report, which tracks broad trends from 2016-2024. While women and people of color have made strides during that time, most women are still paid less than White men, which can be improved by devoting resources to pay equity and succession planning.
Interested in learning more about how to make the most of data? CUPA-HR’s Data and HR webinar series offers insights designed to help you find and convey data to inform your institution’s workforce and policy planning.
The CUPA-HR 2023 Higher Education Employee Retention Survey remains a critical resource for understanding why employees stay and why they leave. Even as turnover started to trend downward last year, higher ed still faces the challenge of filling positions and maintaining morale, while employees seek jobs where their satisfaction and well-being are prioritized.
This spring, we will launch the 2025 Employee Retention Survey to help institutions understand retention trends. Learn how to participate.
Investing in People: How to Create a Coaching Culture on Your Campus builds on the insights of the Employee Retention Survey, which shows that 44% of higher ed employees are not satisfied with opportunities for advancement at their institutions and 34% are not satisfied with support for career development. This article explores how three institutions — the University of Tennessee, Knoxville; Vanderbilt University; and the University of California, Berkeley — created opportunities for coaching and career development, which is associated with increased employee engagement, job satisfaction, retention, and overall organizational performance.
Another reader favorite from last year struck a similar theme. In Employee Engagement: Six Strategies to Help You Keep Your Talent, HR leaders at Worcester Polytechnic Institute share their six-point employee engagement strategy, which includes an honest focus on inclusion and a commitment to employee well-being.
The article What Does a Leader Look Like? Debunking Myths About Women in Leadership Roles highlights a concerning trend in the higher ed workplace: women are not being promoted at the same rate as men. For example, data show that fewer than half (46%) of senior administrative officers are women, and only one-third (33%) of presidents are women. At the root of this disparity are long-standing myths about the promotion process, as well as biases about what a leader looks or acts like. Jackie Bichsel, CUPA-HR’s associate vice president of research, dispels these myths and offers suggestions for how to combat them. Check out our summary on LinkedIn, too.
For more data on pay equity and composition of the workforce, see CUPA-HR data on administrators, faculty, professionals and staff.

There are a lot of things to be furious about these days but let me tell you, one of the things to be upset about is the CBC taking crapulous pot-shots at the college sector for no reason whatsoever. I refer to the story posted between Christmas and New Year’s entitled India’s trafficking claims against Canadian colleges reveal ‘exploited’ immigration, experts say, which was a continuation of an earlier story entitled India alleges Canadian colleges linked to trafficking foreign students over the Canada-U.S. border.
In a word: no, India’s claims do nothing of the sort. And the stories that CBC has been running on the issue border on journalistic malpractice.
All of this coverage is an outgrowth of the so-called “Dingucha” case in which a family of four from the village of Dingucha in Gujarat died while trying to cross the Canada-US Border illegally near Emerson Manitoba in 2022. One member of the family was in Canda on a student visa and was able to bring his spouse (and thus his children) on open work permits.
The hook for the stories that ran over Christmas was a spate of pieces that ran in the Indian press about the case, like this one from NDTV and this one from The Indian Express. They all say basically the same thing, and CBC parroted them word-for-word (there does not appear to have been any attempt by the CBC to report the story from India). Here’s the heart of what CBC said:
India’s Enforcement Directorate said in a news release on Tuesday it had uncovered evidence of human trafficking involving two “entities” in Mumbai after probing the Indian connection to the Patel family, who froze to death in January 2022 while trying to cross the border from Manitoba into Minnesota during frigid weather conditions.
The Enforcement Directorate said its investigation found that about 25,000 students were referred by one entity, with over 10,000 students referred by another entity to various colleges outside India every year.
Arrangements would be made for the Indian nationals to be admitted to Canadian colleges and universities and apply for student visas, according to the Enforcement Directorate.
But once the Indian nationals reached Canada, instead of joining the college, they illegally crossed the border from Canada into the U.S. and the fee received by the Canadian schools was remitted back to the individuals’ account, the Enforcement Directorate said.
Based on this, CBC got a bunch of “experts” to say a variety of things which put colleges and student visas generally in a bad light. I’ll get to those in a moment, but before we do that, let’s just point out a few things wrong with the story’s framing here.
First, and most importantly, this is all reporting on a press release from the Indian Enforcement Directorate (ED). The ED is not the police; it’s part of the Revenue Ministry. To quote its website, “it is a multi-disciplinary organization mandated with investigation of offence of money laundering and violations of foreign exchange laws.” It is unclear what its connection to a murder investigation might be, and curiously, this is a question CBC never appears to have asked.
(In this same vein, while the ED is in theory non-partisan, it has been accused in India of being used as a tool of the ruling BJP. Could the CBC not think of any reason why a Modi-aligned agency might have a reason to make false and defamatory claims about Canada? Really?)
Second, this press release provides no actual evidence provided here about, well, anything. There are “entities” that refer people abroad for study? No shit, Sherlock. They are called agents. They do it all the time. And while there is no question that the Patels (and presumably others who have crossed the border in the past) got to Canada on a student visa, no evidence has been provided showing that any of these agents are in league with human smugglers based in North America. (Note: the press release is very badly drafted, but I think a fair read of it is that it implies that Canadian institutions were aware of the scheme and were implicitly part of it. Needless to say, there is less than zero evidence of this).
Basically: We’ve known for a couple of years now Indian citizens come to Canada on a student visa and then broke the law by trying to enter the US illegally. Exactly no new evidence was provided by the ED in its press release. It is not impossible that such evidence exists, of course, but for the moment no such evidence has been produced.
So why did the CBC react as if it did?
This was the question I asked them when a CBC producer tried to get me to comment on the story on December 27th. Why would you do a story on so little evidence? I said I didn’t think the evidence merited a story but agreed to speak to them if they wanted someone to explain exactly why the evidence was so thin. You will no doubt be shocked to learn that CBC then declined to interview me.
Upon reading the story, it’s not hard to understand why. With zero evidence, they got a bunch of experts to repeat talking points about the awfulness of student visas that they’ve been repeating for months now.
(The “if” in that sentence is doing a hell of a lot of work – AU)
Ok, so, these comments about fraud and oversight are worth examining. I’m trying to imagine how either the government of Canada or an educational institution could legitimately “prevent fraud” or “exercise oversight” in a case like this one. Are colleges and universities supposed to be like the pre-cogs in the movie Minority Report,able to spot criminals before they commit a crime? I mean, there is a case to be made that in the past Canada made such cross-border runs more tempting by allowing students’ entire families to join them in Canada while studying (as was the case in the Dingucha affair), but that loophole was largely closed ten months ago when the feds basically stopped giving open work permits to partners of students unless they were enrolled in a graduate degree.
Anyways, this is where we are now: our national broadcaster sees no problem running evidence-free stories simply as a platform to beat up on public colleges because that’s a great way to get clicks. Crappy journalism? Sure. But it’s also evidence of the disdain with which Canadian PSE institutions are now viewed by the broader public: CBC wouldn’t run such a thin story unless it thought the target was “soft.” And there’s no solution to our funding woes until this gets sorted out.