One thousand students fill the biggest lecture hall on campus—the last class to receive Reich’s wisdom and exhortations not to accept that society has to stay the way it is. His final assignment: Who will be the teachers of tomorrow?

One thousand students fill the biggest lecture hall on campus—the last class to receive Reich’s wisdom and exhortations not to accept that society has to stay the way it is. His final assignment: Who will be the teachers of tomorrow?


On June 26th, the US Department of Education was brought to the Ninth District Court (and Judge Alsup) to show how many the Borrower Defense to Repayment cases that have been resolved per court order. While we wait for a transcript of the latest episode of Sweet v McMahon, what we can tell you is that the Trump government continues to drag its feet in paying back debtors who have been defrauded.

Good history, myth busting, and power analysis are not just retro, they’re rad(ical), and they are critically needed now more than ever. Education, Agitate, Organize…

Like many Wonkhe readers, I’ve been lucky enough this year to support a young person weighing up their post-18 options.
If you are the person in someone’s life that “really understands universities” it does often fall to you to sift through the vagaries of our recruitment and application process. Just what are “predicted grades” and why are they different from what someone got in their mocks? Why can you only apply to five courses on UCAS? Why, for that matter, does it cost money to apply via UCAS? Why are league tables so silly? Is there really a “Discover Uni”?
The new aspect for me this year has been the world of the open day. On a succession of unseasonably rainy weekends I’ve been finding my way around campuses, under strict instructions not to mention who I work for or wear any Wonkhe merch (“so embarrassing!”) and speaking to academics and support staff about undergraduate entry in 2026.
I’d love to say it has all brought back memories of my own open day adventures many years ago – in all honesty it has not. I never visited the university I ended up studying at prior to securing a place, my memory of the others is more of the cities and towns than the campuses and corridors.
And that’s kind of the thing. If you are visiting an open day you are asking about third year options and work placements, but the decision that is being made is more along the lines of what it would be like to live and study in a place. The most successful open days I have seen this year have leaned into this – what would a lecture be like? How would you get from where you live to where you study? What else would I be doing outside of my studies? Where might I get a job?
Academic staff – be they course leaders making a presentation or just generally making themselves available to chat, have often seemed terrified to speak to young applicants and their escorts. I’ve heard an awful lot about course revalidations and QAA Subject Benchmark Statements (yes really!), and while this is clearly great for me I can’t really see anyone else getting much out of it. When you sign up to “the talk” on your subject of choice what I would expect to get is a sense of enthusiasm about the subject and an openness to engage with others who have an interest: we can perhaps assume that anyone who wants to will have read about the course structure on the internet (or even, at one university, in an actual honest-to-god paper prospectus).
My go-to approach for speaking to shy academics is to ask about their personal research interests – all the best conversations we’ve had have been around the particular interests of my prospective student and those of the academics. I feel like it would be good to work some of this into the more formal aspects of the day.
Applicants and their adults have often asked about practical “feel” based stuff – there’s been a lot of questions raised about assessment strategies and exams versus essays and presentations. The interest in post-degree employment is very real – and there is a trend towards listing industry partners (when done best it has offered tangible examples of how students would experience these partnerships).
There’s also the inevitable question of entry requirements. Just about everywhere I’ve been has taken pains to reassure that there may be a place even if the grades aren’t quite there next summer – staff at all kinds of providers are actively promoting clearing entry.
If you are not involving current students in open days you should be (and if you are, be sure to pay them – as you should everyone involved – for what is a very hard day’s work). Speaking to somebody only a few years older than you, who is living the life you are trying on for size, is what really seems to light applicants up. And the more informal the conversation the better it seems – interpolations in course presentations are good, a student-led tour is better, seeing students demonstrate the skills they have learned was excellent, and a sly joke shared in the student accommodation viewing is pretty much the best of all.
Applicants are very good at picking up the overall mood of the day. If people act like the event has arrived suddenly on campus, and nobody is really clear what is going on, you can pick it up a mile off. And this year keeping the positive mood is not easy if you know the scale and direction of staff and funding cuts coming your way: it is very hard to “sell” an applicant on a course if you know it will have less options and less resources than it did this year.
Likewise, basic hygiene factors stand out a mile (and I don’t just mean the halls of residence bathrooms…). If we’re sat having a coffee in the SU – something we always tried to do as a way of getting a sense of what campus life is like – it does rather stand out when there was supposed to be food available but it has all gone, or if all the posters seem to be for events that happened in 2023. I mean, posters are infinitely preferable (if the LGBT+Soc ran Chappell Roan bingo for pride day I am one hundred per cent there for it!) to glossy pictures and sidewinders wheeled out for the day, but maybe check if they are recent?
Likewise, if visitors will be parking on campus some kind of an advanced plan would help – and if you have student services folks sitting at tables make sure there are actual people at the tables to talk to throughout the day.
It’s the little moments. We were surprised to meet a vice chancellor that was clearly and obviously proud of their university, and who had signed up to do a series of rolling introductory talks. The question I got from next to me (“how often would I meet the vice chancellor as a regular student?”) was interesting – all though frankly I was more exercised about the fact that I’d seen the vice chancellor present a golden slide promoting a “TEF Gold in student experience” with the overall silver noted in tiny writing at the bottom.
The awards and the league table placings really come across as noise – I didn’t see any applicant looking remotely impressed, although some were interested in graduate destinations and links to employers.
An open day is an audition. An applicant is trying on the idea of being a student at your university – the best way to respond (and I’ve seen this done really well) is to set out just how great the student experience actually is: the TEF components are perhaps less impressive than what actual students say and the intangible “feel” of the campus. Students spend a lot of time asking “where do I go now?” – applicants have pretty much the same question.

FIRE staff responds to the Court’s decision in Free Speech
Coalition v. Paxton that addresses a Texas law requiring age
verification for accessing certain sexual material online.
Joining us:
Will
Creeley — Legal director
Bob Corn-Revere — Chief counsel
Ronnie London — General counsel
Timestamps:
01:21 How the case wound up at the Supreme Court 06:57 Bob’s
experience with arguing strict scrutiny in the courts 09:32
Ronnie’s perspective on the ruling 10:22 Brick + mortar stores vs.
online sites 12:07 Has the Court established a new category of
partially protected speech? 13:36 What speech is still subject to
strict scrutiny after the ruling? 15:55 What does it mean to
address the “work as a whole” in the internet context? 17:24 What
modifications to the ruling, if any, would have satisfied FIRE?
18:06 What are the alternatives to address the internet’s risks
toward minors? 20:16 For non-lawyer Americans, what is the best
normative argument against the ruling? 22:38 Why is this ruling a
“canary in the coal mine?” 23:36 How is age verification really
about identity verification? 24:42 Why did the Court assume the
need to protect children without citing any scientific findings in
its ruling? 26:17 Does the ruling allow for more identity-based
access barriers to lawful online speech? 28:04 Will Americans have
to show ID to get into a public library? 29:30 Why does stare
decisis seem to mean little to nothing to the Court? 32:08 Will
there be a problem with selective enforcement of content-based
restrictions on speech? 34:12 Could the ruling spark a patchwork of
state laws that create digital borders? 36:26 Is there any other
instance where the Court has used intermediate scrutiny in a First
Amendment case? 37:29 Is the Court going to keep sweeping
content-based statutes in the “incidental effect on speech” bucket?
38:14 Is sexual speech considered obscene? 40:33 How does the
ruling affect adult content on mainstream social media platforms
like Reddit and X? 43:27 Where does the ruling leave us on age
verification laws?
Show notes:
– Supreme Court ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf
– FIRE statement on FSC v. Paxton ruling: https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-statement-free-speech-coalition-v-paxton-upholding-age-verification-adult-content
– FIRE’s brief for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.thefire.org/news/supreme-court-agrees-review-fifth-circuit-decision-upholding-texas-adult-content-age
– FIRE’s amicus brief in support of petitioners and reversal:
https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/amicus-brief-support-petitioners-and-reversal-free-speech-coalition-v-paxton

This is a developing story and will be updated.
The University of Virginia president James Ryan said Friday he was resigning after the Justice Department demanded he step down.
“To make a long story short, I am inclined to fight for what I believe in, and I believe deeply in this university,” Ryan wrote in a letter to the campus community. “But I cannot make a unilateral decision to fight the federal government in order to save my own job. To do so would not only be quixotic but appear selfish and self-centered to the hundreds of employees who would lose their jobs, the researchers who would lose their funding, and the hundreds of students who could lose financial aid or have their visas withheld.”
The Justice Department has for months been quietly investigating whether the Virginia flagship complied with President Donald Trump’s order banning diversity, equity and inclusion programs. The university’s Board of Visitors voted to dissolve its DEI office in March, but multiple conservative alumni groups and legal entities complained that Ryan failed to eliminate DEI from all corners of campus. In many cases, critics argue that the university simply changed the names of programs but maintained their core function.
The New York Times first reported on the resignation and the Justice Department’s demand Thursday evening.
Ryan wrote that he had planned to step down next spring for reasons separate from the investigation; he didn’t say when his resignation would take effect.
“While there are very important principles at play here, I would at a very practical level be fighting to keep my job for one more year while knowingly and willingly sacrificing others in this community,” he wrote.
Ryan took over at UVA in August 2018, steering the institution through the aftermath of the deadly white supremacist rally in August 2017, the pandemic and the racial reckoning in 2020. He also cracked down on pro-Palestinian protesters last spring—a move that Republicans in the state backed but students and faculty condemned. Ryan also embraced institutional neutrality and sought to make UVA a leader in the study of democracy.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said in a statement Friday that the Justice Department welcomes “leadership changes in higher education that signal institutional commitment to our nation’s venerable federal civil rights laws.”
DOJ hasn’t said publicly what laws UVA allegedly violated, though Dhillon’s statement noted that the agency “has a zero-tolerance policy toward illegal discrimination in publicly-funded universities.”
From the early days of his second term, Trump has made a point of dragging elite, largely Ivy League institutions like Columbia and Harvard Universities into the national spotlight and berating them for their supposed liberal ideologies and alleged antisemitism. But this investigation of UVA, a public institution in a state led by a Republican, represents a new front in the administration’s war against higher education—and so far Trump is succeeding.
Brendan Cantwell, a higher education professor at Michigan State University, said Ryan’s resignation is a “major blow” to the independence of American institutions.
“It is a sign that major public research universities are substantially controlled by a political party whose primary goal is to further its partisan agenda and will stop at nothing to bring the independence of higher education to heel,” he told Inside Higher Ed. “It undercuts both the integrity of academic communities as self-governing based on the judgment of expert professionals and the traditional accountability that public universities have to their states via formal and established governance mechanisms.”
Legal experts who spoke with the Times struggled to recall other instances when the federal government has demanded a university board fire the chief official, saying it has only been done in the past when concerning corporate criminal cases.
Robert Kelchen, an education policy professor at the University of Tennessee, noted that Ryan’s resignation portends a future in which all public university presidents must conform to the political views of their state’s leadership or be kicked out of office.
“Trump pushing James Ryan to resign at UVA is important, but it happened in part because VA’s governor is also Republican,” Kelchen wrote on BlueSky.
Virginia’s two senators, who are both Democrats, said in a joint statement that the demand for Ryan to resign “is a mistake that hurts Virginia’s future.”
“It is outrageous that officials in the Trump Department of Justice demanded the Commonwealth’s globally recognized university remove President Ryan—a strong leader who has served UVA honorably and moved the university forward—over ridiculous ‘culture war’ traps,” said Sens. Tim Kaine and Mark Warner. “Decisions about UVA’s leadership belong solely to its Board of Visitors, in keeping with Virginia’s well-established and respected system of higher education governance.”
Virginia governor Glenn Youngkin thanked Ryan for his service to UVA in a statement Friday afternoon. Youngkin, a Republican, has appointed a majority of the university’s board members.
“The Board of Visitors has my complete confidence as they swiftly appoint a strong interim steward, and undertake the national search for a transformational leader that can take Mr. Jefferson’s university into the next decade and beyond,” he said in the statement.
While the administration’s campaign against Harvard and Columbia mostly played out in public, the UVA investigation was more quiet. The DOJ didn’t send press releases about UVA or make public hay about its demands. Instead it sent letters to the university about its inquiry and findings.
On April 28, DOJ cited complaints about how the university was handling its DEI programs, according to the Times and the Charlottesville Daily Progress. Initially the letter set a compliance deadline of May 2. That was then extended to May 30.
After that, the DOJ received multiple complaint letters from groups like American First Legal, a legal advocacy group founded by Trump’s deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, suggesting the university had yet to comply.
In a final letter, dated June 17, the department laid out its demands yet again, this time noting the complaints it had received from groups like AFL and saying that the university needed to make swift changes or pay the price, the Times reported. The government’s lawyers, which include several UVA alumni, found that UVA considered race in its admissions and in deciding other student benefits, according to the Times.
“Time is running short, and the department’s patience is wearing thin,” the letter said.
Neither the White House nor the DOJ have released a public statement about their demands of UVA or Ryan’s resignation.
The university said in a statement Friday morning that it is “committed to complying with all federal laws and has been cooperating with the Department of Justice in the ongoing inquiries.” But it has not said anything further since Ryan announced his departure.

Today, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to uphold Texas’s age-verification law for sites featuring adult content. The decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton effectively reverses decades of Supreme Court precedent that protects the free speech rights of adults to access information without jumping over government age-verification hurdles.
FIRE filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that free expression “requires vigilant protection, and the First Amendment doesn’t permit short cuts.” FIRE believes that the government’s efforts to restrict adults’ access to constitutionally protected information must be carefully tailored, and that Texas’ law failed to do so.
The following statement can be attributed to FIRE Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere.
Today’s ruling limits American adults’ access to only that speech which is fit for children — unless they show their papers first.
After today, adults in the State of Texas must upload sensitive information to access speech that the First Amendment fully protects for them. This wrongheaded, invasive result overturns a generation of precedent and sacrifices anonymity and privacy in the process.
Data breaches are inevitable. How many will it take before we understand the threat today’s ruling presents?
Americans will live to regret the day we let the government condition access to protected speech on proof of our identity. FIRE will fight nationwide to ensure that this erosion of our rights goes no further.

Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU), long hailed as a leader in online education and a symbol of institutional reinvention, laid off approximately 60 employees on June 27, 2025. The move came without warning to staff, according to an anonymous source close to the situation.
Employees reportedly received a generic email from Lisa Marsh Ryerson, SNHU’s newly installed president, delivering the news of their termination. There was no video call, no face-to-face meeting, and no meaningful explanation beyond the cold language of corporate HR.
“There was no sincerity,” the source said. “No real communication. Just a robotic email. No opportunity for questions, no acknowledgment of people’s service.”
The layoffs have sent shockwaves through the university’s workforce—many of whom had believed that SNHU’s image as a student-centered and employee-friendly institution translated into job security. That assumption, it appears, was misplaced.
SNHU, which once garnered praise from the Obama administration for its innovative online learning model, has undergone significant changes in recent years. Under the leadership of former president Paul LeBlanc, the university expanded its online programs rapidly and became one of the largest nonprofit providers of online degrees in the United States. But as the market for online education becomes increasingly competitive and enrollment pressures mount across the country, even big players like SNHU appear to be tightening their belts.
What’s striking about this latest round of cuts is not just the numbers—but the tone. At a university that prides itself on personalization and student engagement, employees describe the layoff process as abrupt, impersonal, and dehumanizing.
“They preach empathy to students,” the source noted. “But when it came to their own staff, there was none.”
It’s unclear which departments or roles were affected. SNHU has yet to issue a public statement, and no mention of the layoffs could be found on the university’s website or social media accounts at the time of publication.
The layoffs at SNHU follow broader trends in the higher education sector, where institutions—both public and private—are increasingly resorting to staff reductions amid enrollment declines, demographic shifts, and uncertain funding landscapes. But even in this context, the lack of transparency and empathy stands out.
The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to monitor developments at Southern New Hampshire University and invites current and former employees to share their experiences confidentially.