The Oregon Health & Science University will receive a $2 billion gift from Nike co-founder Phil Knight and his wife, Penny, to support the eponymous Knight Cancer Institute, OHSU announced last week.
It is the largest single donation ever made to a U.S. university-affiliated health center and is intended to promote the integration of cancer diagnostics, treatment and patient care.
The gift will allow the cancer institute to become self-governed within OHSU. It will have its own board of directors under the leadership of Brian Druker, a leukemia researcher who has worked closely with the Knights and who helped develop a drug that vastly improved the life span of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia.
“This gift is an unprecedented investment in the millions of lives burdened with cancer, especially patients and families here in Oregon,” said OHSU president Shereef Elnahal. “It is also a signal of trust in the superlative work that our clinicians, researchers and teammates at the Knight Cancer Institute do every day. Dr. Druker’s vision around a multidisciplinary system of care—focused squarely on making the patient’s experience seamless from the moment they receive a diagnosis—will now become reality. And thanks to the extraordinary generosity of Mr. and Mrs. Knight, Oregon will be the place to do it.”
The Knights have been key benefactors of the cancer institute. In 2013 they vowed to donate $500 million if the university could match the funds within two years—which it did, thanks to $200 million in bonds from the Oregon Legislature, $100 million from Columbia Sportswear chair Gert Boyle and assorted donations from some 10,000 individuals from all 50 states and 15 countries.
Over the past seven months, members of the American Association of University Professors, a 110-year-old organization that is fundamental in defining and protecting academic freedom, have found themselves, their disciplines and their universities on the receiving end of the Trump administration’s unrelenting attack on higher ed.
As Republicans in some states diminish the influence of faculty senates, AAUP state- and campus-level chapters, which often also represent faculty as official unions, have led the criticism of the federal government’s actions. But how is the AAUP planning to fight now—more than half a year into Trump’s return to power, as Washington continues to pressure some of the country’s most powerful universities into making concessions?
Late last week, Inside Higher Ed interviewed Todd Wolfson, whom AAUP members elected as their president in June 2024. A former union leader at Rutgers University, Wolfson denounced the Trump-Vance ticket well before the GOP victory in November. Now, he’s leading the AAUP as it protests, sues and otherwise tussles with Trump.
The following transcript of the interview has been edited for clarity and concision.
Q: We’re now more than six months into Trump’s second administration. What is the current state of academic freedom?
A: It’s being washed over by an administration that has no respect, or even probably understanding, of the concept. We’re seeing massive infringement of academic freedom at the individual level. But then, it’s also the academic freedom of institutions.
In the McCarthy era, the attacks on academic freedom were attacks on individual faculty and demands for loyalty oaths and those sorts of attacks on individuals, not on institutions. So I’d say that, in the current moment, academic freedom is under its most fundamental attack we’ve ever seen, both in its attack on individual academics, but also on institutional autonomy from the federal government, ideological control.
Q: Did you expect the Trump administration to target higher ed this much, or in these ways? What has and hasn’t surprised you?
A: We were raising the alarm about this from before the election. We were very concerned about statements coming out of … the Trump campaign and then JD Vance’s mouth. So we recognized a threat. I mean, if you go back and look at Trump’s campaign video about higher ed, it’s like pure lunacy, right?
And it’s not that this was new—because [of Florida governor] Ron DeSantis—but it was alarming. Even with that, though, I would say that, clearly, we underestimated how dangerous it was. I did not expect a wholesale assault on the sector, squeezing it from every direction. And so, yes, I’m surprised. We were not prepared for how they’ve approached dismantling higher education.
I never expected the Trump administration to take a democracy, or the health of American society, to heart, because they’re grifters and they’re in it for their own personal power and their own personal wealth. But I did not expect that they would be so outlandishly intent on destroying a sector that’s so important to the fundamental values and power of American society.
Q: Yeah, you called then–vice presidential candidate JD Vance a fascist last August. Has he turned out to be one?
A: I would say so.
Vance and Trump and [Christopher] Rufo and Stephen Miller and the ilk that run our government are fascist in a 21st-century variant—not operating within the constructs of our society, [but] trying to rip those constructs down. I think the last six months have borne out my position pretty well.
The ilk that run our government are fascist in a 21st-century variant—not operating within the constructs of our society, [but] trying to rip those constructs down.”
Q: How has the AAUP resisted the Trump administration’s actions, and universities’ apparent responses to those actions?
A: The first and most important is we’re organizing our members, we’re doing a lot of political education with them, we’re thinking together about the problems at the campus level and then the problems at the state and national level, and we’re talking about how we approach it. We’ve grown more than this organization has ever grown in the last six months.
We built out coalition[s]. And so I think the most important [coalition]—but not the only one—is that we have established and coordinated a space called Labor for Higher Ed where all the international unions sit together and work together to come up with a coordinated plan to respond to the Trump administration. That’s never happened before. We have every major union that has higher ed workers sitting at that table.
[Secondly,] we sued the Trump administration on our own six times. With our AFT [American Federation of Teachers] as our [union] affiliate … probably another three or four times.
They’re doing so many things that are so obviously unconstitutional and illegal, and so we’re trying to use the courts to slow them down.
The third [tactic]—and you’ll see more of this, but you’ve probably been watching and seen it throughout the spring of last year—is getting our people into the streets, fighting back, offering a different vision. This has primarily happened in response to the NIH, NSF cuts.
Wolfson (at podium) at a news conference at AAUP headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Ryan Quinn/Inside Higher Ed
The fourth area is that we need to offer … a countervision of higher education to the Trump vision, which is higher education ideologically controlled by the federal government, in its most extreme form, as well as the complete destruction of our biomedical research infrastructure and our research over all.
We’re working on a policy vision that will move us into the midterms … a counterimaginary of higher ed to the imaginary that’s been developed by the Trump administration, by Chris Rufo, one where we’re all Marxist ideologues indoctrinating our students.
The last area is that we’re supporting the development of organizing at the campus level to challenge and hold our administrations accountable, whether supporting the mutual aid defense compact projects that [have] mushroomed across higher ed, or supporting the fights at campus levels around academic freedom and freedom of speech, or any other number of things that we’re doing to support faculty at the campus level, to get their administrations to hold firm and not to bow to the Trump administration’s demands before they even make them.
We had 40,000 members, now we have something like 50,000 members [since Wolfson was elected president last year]. By the end of the calendar year, I’d like to see [60,000]. And that’s dues-paying members.
Q: Has there been an increase in the number of campus chapters or state conferences?
A: Since Trump was elected, I think we’ve grown by at least 40 chapters. Some of those chapters had gone dormant and then renewed and came back to life.
So if we had, when [current AAUP leaders] took office, something like 500 chapters, now there’s something like 550.
Q: Do you have any regrets about tactics or actions your organization has taken so far during the second Trump administration?
A: Certainly, I have regrets. Everyone makes mistakes. I don’t know if this is a regret, [but] I think that our sector is not fully ready to respond to the real threats. Our sector needs to be able to take militant job actions and other sorts of actions as this issue continues to ramp up.
We won’t do that if we don’t have the ability to do it at a scale that makes it powerful and meaningful and effective. And so I think that’s the thing we are working on, and anything we do—and I want to underscore this—would be nonviolent and peaceful.
But, nonetheless, we need to be able to militantly show how concerned we are—not only over our own institutions and our own jobs and our students, but also around higher education and the future of our democracy.
Q: Is what you’re saying is needed is a simultaneous general strike across higher education institutions across the country?
A: If we continue to have a federal government that takes over our cities and puts our cities under martial law and abuses the institutional autonomy of our higher education institutions and does all sorts of things that we all see are undemocratic and dangerous, we need to be prepared not only for a general strike in higher education, but a general strike over all.
I don’t think a higher education general strike is an action that will be effective, because I don’t think that higher education alone has this sort of industrial power to hurt the economy in a way that could force us to try to move through this moment.
If the Trump administration continues on its course … the only force that could respond to that effectively is a labor movement that is willing to withhold its labor, and in a general way.”
But I’m saying if the Trump administration continues on its course—which is a course that’s antidemocratic, that could undermine elections, that could take over cities, that could endanger citizens in the way it did in L.A. and now is doing in D.C., and that is destroying our democracy one piece at a time—that the only force that could respond to that effectively is a labor movement that is willing to withhold its labor, and in a general way.
Q: I was wondering whether you felt that your organization relied a little too much on litigation, or whether protest fell flat.
A: Maybe society writ large in the U.S. is depending too much on courts. I wish we were prepared, as workers in the sector, to take approaches that were more direct than just the courts. But, obviously, we can only be a reflection of the workers in the sector. We cannot, as an institution, push ourselves well beyond where our workers are at.
Q: I think many people would agree that things have gotten worse and worse as the Trump administration has progressed … What does AAUP plan to do differently going forward?
A: There can’t be an expectation that the moment that the Trump administration took office, that … all of the higher ed workers and our students would have been ready and prepared to respond. There is often a lag time between a crisis and the public’s response to that crisis.
We should be critical of ourselves and critical of our tactics and think about how to respond better and move forward better. We see the next 16 months as really important, and that rolls us through the midterms of 2026.
We don’t plan to do this alone. We plan to do this with every higher ed worker, and so that’s why Labor for Higher Ed—this table that represents millions of higher ed workers coming together and working together and coming up with this plan together—is so important. We’re also building an aligned table with our students and student organizations, and also with alumni and alumni organizations. And so we think that if those three forces can come together and fight specifically over higher ed, we can make a real fight.
Wolfson at a rally outside the Health and Human Services Department headquarters.
Ryan Quinn/Inside Higher Ed
But I’ll say this … higher ed workers alone cannot beat back the Trump administration. It needs to be a multisector fight. Federal workers—who are also under attack—we need to build alliance with them. K–12 teachers, health-care workers, immigrant workers, progressive community organizations all need to build an aligned front that is ready to take risks, because if we don’t take those risks, we may look at what we have in 2026 and we might not have clean, fair elections.
I think we have to take that very seriously, and we have to build our power to respond.
[Currently, we need] a real fight around the budget, from now through October, a fight around the budget that demands a fully funded NIH, NSF, NASA, [that] pushes around the destruction of the student loan program [and] fights over the TRIO program … which is a program for first-generation college kids.
From there, we are going to be really working on our campuses, building campus-level campaigns and state-level campaigns around higher education.
The things we want to have in [the national] vision are things like a demand for free public higher education, college for all and an end to adjunctification, an end to student debt, more research funding … and then use that vision to really fight for candidates that lift up our imagination of higher education as we move into the midterms.
We are going to fight in the streets and we’re going to fight politically. This is a political battle, and we need to respond politically in this battle.
Q: How do you fight an enemy that seems to thrive on conflict and to derive strength partly by othering certain groups of people—and, among those groups of people … faculty?
A: Faculty and the press and people of color and women and gay people and trans people and anybody that’s not white, Christian nationalist, in the end, is othered. And then even within the white Christian nationalist community, if you’re not MAGA, or you care about a free press, or care about free inquiry, you’re othered.
That first six months was a freaking whirlwind, and so we were really reactive, we were reacting. The Trump administration set the tone—not just for us, to be clear, obviously [for] the Democratic Party, but the progressive community more generally or any sector under attack.
We have been too reactive to the political environment, and so I think the biggest thing that we need to do is stay on our message and vision.
Now there seems to be some fracturing, maybe over Palestine, in the right-wing echo chamber. But, in general, that echo chamber has operated in lockstep and it’s huge, and we don’t have anything like that. Whatever we do, we’re never going to have the megaphone that they have. But, what I do believe is that we must put out our own proactive vision. It can no longer be “Ron DeSantis is mean, and he’s saying bad things about DEI and we need to stop him,” or “Donald Trump is saying bad things about Harvard,” or “Chris Rufo, can you believe how ridiculous the things he puts out are?”
We can’t be constantly responding to them. We can’t have kids going into hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt to get a college degree, and we need to make sure that we have work with dignity and free inquiry and we need to make sure we have the best research infrastructure in the world.
Q: You mentioned Palestine. What position, what action, if any, does national AAUP need to take on Israel and Palestine at this moment? … I know that you guys already dropped your categorical opposition to academic boycotts before Trump’s election.
A: We believe strongly that no weapons should be sent to Israel, at all. Not defensive or offensive, nothing.
What do we do in the U.S., where antisemitism has been used as a weapon, in many ways, by the Trump administration to bring universities to heel—and many times stripping out, or threatening to strip out, hundreds of millions of research dollars that often affect Jewish faculty members? Versus what our position should be on the conflict in the Middle East?
First and foremost, our job is to safeguard ourselves at home and to set a vision that aligns with what we’re trying to do in the United States. We need to stand up for academic freedom, for freedom of speech, for freedom of assembly for our students so they can protest the war—the genocide, excuse me—that’s taking place in Gaza.
We need to stand up to the weaponization of antisemitism in the Title VI process. And we need to make sure that we defend our members.
We think the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, which does not get involved with questions of the Israeli state at all, is a much more apt way of defining antisemitism.
The numbers of universities and faculty and university presidents [in Gaza] that have been killed and universities that have been destroyed in this war is mammoth. We are certainly educating our members on this concept of scholasticide.
It seems pretty obvious that they are—but if, in fact, Israel is purposefully destroying the educational infrastructure, both K–12 and higher ed, of Palestine, and of Gaza, that stands against our values of academic freedom. And if that’s the case, and we can unify around that, then we will take a stand and call for an end to the scholasticide.
Q: What will it take, ultimately, to get the Trump administration to relent in its attacks on higher ed?
A: Ultimately, we need a massive movement of higher ed workers and students. But, again, I don’t think that’s enough.
I believe as higher ed goes, so goes democracy. But the converse isn’t absolutely true. Higher ed alone cannot save democracy, but we’re a critical part.
It needs to be a broader societal movement to save our country.
This HEPI blog was kindly authored by Joanna Hart, Products, Services, and Innovation Director at the Mauve Group.
In the last couple of months, the UK Government has unveiled a 10-year, Modern Industrial Strategy and published an Immigration whitepaper, which referenced expanding visa pathways such as the High Potential Individual and Global Talent visas. The industrial strategy aims to attract highly skilled global talent in eight priority sectors, with a strong focus on technology and innovation. Collectively, these efforts to attract global graduates are undercut by new barriers facing international undergraduate students.
Ongoing changes to the Skilled Worker visa, including steep increases to salary thresholds, and tighter restrictions on dependents, combined with proposals to shorten the Graduate Visa, and introduce a controversial 6% international student levy, create mounting financial and reputational pressure on UK universities, while also deterring international undergraduates.
In response, institutions are turning to establishing overseas campuses to offset domestic shortfalls and attract local talent who may still benefit from expanded UK visa pathways post-graduation. While attracting high-level international talent is valuable for addressing skills gaps in the UK, it must be part of a broader, symbiotic strategy. One that nurtures international students from undergraduate level through to employment to ensure UK higher education remains globally competitive.
Visa routes
An important step in the much-needed long-term strategy is the implementation of expanded visa pathways such as the High Potential Individual (HPI) visa and the visa, traditionally for internationally educated post-graduates and entrepreneurs.
High Potential Individual (HPI) visa
The High Potential Individual (HPI) visa is a UK immigration pathway designed for recent graduates from 40 top global universities, providing the opportunity to live and work in the UK for several years. At present, 47% of universities on the list are from the US, with just one institution from the entire southern hemisphere featured.
The Immigration whitepaper released in May and the UK government’s industrial strategy referenced extending the HPI visa to a wider selection of global universities. According to the UK government, it intends to roll out a ‘capped and targeted expansion of the HPI route for top graduates, doubling the number of qualifying universities.’ However, we do not yet know whether this expansion will be based on global league tables or geographic location.
Innovator Founder visa
The Innovator Founder visa offers the opportunity for founders of new, innovative, viable and scalable businesses to operate in the UK for three years. Traditionally, it facilitates incoming innovation, but the newly announced UK industrial strategy suggested the Innovator Founder Visa would be reviewed to make it easier for entrepreneurial talent currently studying at UK universities to be eligible. Details are yet to be disclosed but recent figures reveal that the average Innovator Founder Visa application success rate to the UK is almost 88%. While this is significant, it is not as high as other visa types, such as the Skilled Worker Visa, which is 99%. While the overall approval rate for Innovator Founder Visa applications sits at 88%, this figure can be misleading. The critical bottleneck is at the endorsement stage the first hurdle in the process, where the success rate drops sharply to just 36%
Skilled Worker and Graduate visa
Changes to visa pathways for domestically educated international students, including the Skilled Worker and Graduate visas, may result in applicants feeling short-changed. For example, it has been proposed that the standard length of the Graduate visa, which allows international students to remain working in the UK at the beginning of their careers, be reduced from two years to 18 months. If implemented, it may make it hard to secure a career after studying in the UK.
Meanwhile, effective from the 22nd July 2025, the minimum salary threshold for the Skilled Worker visa will rise to £41,700. Occupation-specific salary thresholds will also increase by about 10%, with the minimum skills requirements raised to Royal Qualifications Framework (RQF) level 6 for new applicants. Prior to the changes, between 30 and 70 per cent of graduate visa holders in employment may not have been working in RQF level 6 or above occupations. Although there are some discounted thresholds for PhD students, especially in STEM fields, these changes are set to exclude many current Skilled Worker visa holders.
How will higher education respond to stricter selective visa rules?
Drawbacks
One of the major drawbacks comes from the announcement that the government is considering introducing a 6% levy on higher education provider income from international students. It is likely that universities will be forced to consider passing these costs onto international students. The UK’s higher education sector generates £22 billion annually from international students and education, making it a valuable export to the UK in an increasingly competitive global market. The proposed levy risks discouraging international students and undermining this critical source of economic growth.
Many institutions will already have factored in price increases to account for rising costs going forward, making an additional 6% unfeasible.
Numerous universities are already struggling financially, with courses and entire departments being cut. With the possibility of a highly reduced international student body due to the levy and further changes to graduate visa pathways, these institutions face increased strain, meaning even more drastic cuts may be imminent.
Benefits
With an emphasis on higher visa thresholds, rising costs and the controversial 6% levy on international fees, UK universities face growing challenges to remain competitive in the global education landscape.
In response, many are rethinking their models, with institutions like the Universities of Liverpool and Southampton establishing campuses in Bengaluru and Gurugram, India, respectively. UK Universities operate 38 campuses across 18 countries, educating over 67,750 students abroad. Embracing international collaboration not only broadens the research opportunities available to UK universities but also supports financial sustainability and preserves the UK’s reputation as a global education powerhouse. By establishing overseas campuses and hubs, the UK’s academic influence extends well beyond its borders. This pivot will provide opportunities for international students to receive UK-affiliated accreditations, potentially giving them greater access to selective UK visa pathways post-graduation.
To adapt, higher education must develop a more integrated approach; one that links international recruitment, offshore campuses, and expanded visa pathways in a cohesive, long-term strategy. This means not only attracting global graduates but supporting students from undergraduate level through to employment, driving opportunity and innovation in the UK.
If UK institutions are to remain global leaders, they must work with the government to ensure that opportunity does not begin at graduation; it begins at enrolment. By nurturing this full pipeline, universities can continue to feed the skilled workforce envisioned in the new industrial strategy.
I was absolutely appalled at the anonymous AP Literature and Composition reader’s summary of his time in Salt Lake City. I was even more appalled by his tone, which was condescending, arrogant and unapologetic, and by his sense of superiority. Far be it from me to evaluate how he might be as a teacher (especially if he had a bad night’s sleep, poor lamb), but his emphatic victimhood at the circumstances that accompanied the reading, which he signed up for, was more than off-putting; it was flat out reprehensible.
His attitude, that this whole event is beneath him, is hard to understand. Again, he chose to be there. He blatantly ignored his table leaders, skimmed rather than read essays and, behind the shield of anonymity, celebrated only giving a handful of 5s. He took it as a personal affront when he was asked to follow the rules. I feel especially bad for any AP student who suffered because of the negligence of this dismissive and self-pitying reader.
Worse, he used his entire experience as a microcosm for What’s Wrong With Education Today. The other readers are a part of this excoriation: While he gets up to give himself additional breaks, his colleagues “seem well adapted to the AP regimen, and to regimentation.” He, though, has escaped from Plato’s cave and has come back to tell us all … that the free coffee wasn’t very good.
This, while there are actual problems plaguing the state of college writing, from students uncritically using AI to assignments and essays that aren’t accurately evaluating student learning. With these legitimate concerns, it seems myopic to worry only that he encountered too few essays that contained “something insightful or fluent.” From that small sample, he concludes, “Is this how we’re educating the best and brightest, these college students of the near future? Are the vaunted humanities—assailed for years from without—rotting from within?”
A sharp reader might resist stooping to make such generalizations. A sharp reader might conclude that work written hastily on an unseen topic while myriad other concerns are influencing its writer will rarely be sufficiently fluent. But the author’s preoccupation with these flawed essays reveals something worse: an attitude more concerned with signifying his august tastes than celebrating some of the essays’ successes—which AP readers are explicitly tasked with doing. As many happiness scholars have noted, expressing gratitude is an often-effective way to combat negativity.
If I were the sort of writer who uses few examples to draw overconfident conclusions, I might argue that the anonymous author represents the worst sort of virtue signaler: one who simultaneously laments that the “army of food service workers, mostly Hispanic or Asian,” must serve all the readers, but who also overindulges on the free food (“my waistline expands”). He likewise points out the inequality women professors face (“That fits with the service-heavy load female professors typically shoulder at most universities”) while demeaning his own female table assistant-leader (ignoring her when she asked him to put away his phone). Dare one conclude that he is staring at the mere shadows of true virtue down in his cave of concrete convention center floors and thick black curtains?
Maybe I am overreacting. I have a visceral dislike for the sort of persona he displays here, and it was part of the reason I left higher education after finishing my Ph.D. At most academic conferences, especially in the humanities, where our findings aren’t as obviously helpful to the field as, say, the sciences, postering and self-aggrandizement were pervasive. Seven years ago, I became a high school teacher and now an AP Literature reader, and I’m happy to report that I find myself surrounded more by the optimism of youth than the performative jadedness of some of those in higher education.
I’m sorry the author wears his ennui and disillusionment as a signifier of his superiority. I’m sorry he celebrates his misanthropy alongside his impractically high standards. And it’s a shame that he was so disheartened by this experience, he felt the need to trash it publicly. To what end?
I was not at the author’s table this year. I’m sure my sunny disposition would have made me fodder for his future displeasure. (When he got to his table and saw so many people excited to start reading, he responded, “The enthusiastic vibe can’t help, either.”) But perhaps instead of focusing our energies complaining about the task of wading through essays or the state of writing today, we can embrace the role we have as educators. Few other positions offer that sort of direct influence on such a large number of people.
Hopefully, as we teach our students to write well and insightfully analyze texts, we can also teach them to see the hope that comes with possibility—to see that they can always find something to celebrate, as long as they try to have the right attitude.
Andrew J. Calis is an English teacher at Archbishop Spalding High School in Maryland.
Enrollment peaked around 2010–11 at just over 21 million students and has since declined, a trend that has reshaped colleges nationwide.
Federal projections suggest continuing stagnation or decline in the next two decades, yet the entry treats these as side notes.
Meanwhile, the Issues in higher education in the United States article lists challenges like grade inflation, financial pressures, and lowered academic standards, but these issues are not integrated into the main overview. The result is a fragmented and outdated picture.
Why This Page Is Falling Behind
1. Volunteer Labor Isn’t Enough
Wikipedia relies entirely on volunteer editors. That independence keeps it free of corporate ownership and advertising, but it also means entire subject areas are neglected. Complex, politically charged topics like U.S. higher education demand attention from contributors with both knowledge and time. Many volunteers understandably focus on tech, pop culture, or history, leaving higher education under-updated.
This mirrors higher education itself, where adjunct faculty and unpaid interns are asked to sustain institutions without adequate compensation. Noble ideals, but little support.
2. Critical Issues Are Fragmented
The main page does not incorporate systemic problems like accreditation reform, federal funding battles, declining public trust, or backlash against elite universities. These issues exist on separate Wikipedia entries, but the lack of synthesis makes the main article misleading.
Why It Matters
Wikipedia is the first reference point for millions of students, journalists, policymakers, and members of the public. If its coverage of higher education is outdated, so is much of the discussion about the system that shapes millions of lives and drives trillions in economic activity.
Wikipedia’s Imperfections and Value
Wikipedia is not perfect. Its open-edit model makes it vulnerable to bias, uneven coverage, and gaps in accuracy. Corporate or political interests sometimes attempt to shape entries in their favor. But it remains one of the few large-scale sources of freely available knowledge in the world.
At a moment when AI systems are flooding the internet with synthetic content—often scraped from Wikipedia itself—it is even more important to sustain a platform built on transparency and human oversight. Wikipedia should be critiqued, improved, and supported—not discarded.
What Readers Can Do
Donate Time
Update the Higher education in the United States article with current data, policy changes, and pressing issues.
Even new editors can contribute with guidance from Wikipedia’s editing tutorials.
Donate Money
The Wikimedia Foundation depends on donations to maintain the servers, security, and tools that keep Wikipedia online and ad-free.
Contributions also support outreach to expert editors who can keep complex articles like this one current.
Knowledge for All
Wikipedia was founded on the principle of free knowledge for all. That principle is worth defending, but it requires ongoing labor and resources. If higher education matters to you, consider giving your time as an editor—or your money as a donor—to ensure this story is told accurately.
For millions of Americans, tattoos were meant to be personal landmarks—bold, permanent declarations of identity. For college students, the decision to get one often happens in the whirlwind of new freedom, campus culture, and peer influence. But as years pass and the ink fades, many find themselves with more than just a physical reminder—they face a costly, time-consuming process of erasure.
The scale of regret is hard to ignore. Surveys suggest that about one in four Americans with tattoos regret at least one of them. That’s roughly 20 million people, and among those aged 18 to 30—prime college years—the number climbs closer to one in three. A dermatology study found that 26 percent of tattooed patients expressed regret, with over 40 percent of them seeking removal or cover-ups. Regret is especially common when tattoos are obtained in late adolescence, when judgment is less mature, or when they are done cheaply, hastily, or in highly visible areas like the forearms, neck, or face.
The economic fallout is familiar to anyone who has studied the for-profit college industry. Just as private lenders profit from the desperation of indebted graduates, the tattoo removal industry thrives on the emotional and professional consequences of youthful decisions. In 2024, the global tattoo removal market was worth more than $1.1 billion and is projected to triple by 2032. In the U.S., the market has ballooned from $65.9 million in 2023 to a forecast of more than $400 million by 2033. Clinics report surges in demand, with some chains—like Removery—expanding to over 150 locations worldwide. Their marketing often mirrors higher education’s own slogans of transformation and reinvention.
The drivers of removal are telling. A tattoo might commemorate a relationship that ended badly, reflect a political or cultural affiliation that’s become toxic, or simply be a relic of a passing trend. Others are driven to removal for professional survival. While tattoos have become more acceptable in creative fields and service work, they can still derail opportunities in education, law, finance, healthcare, and parts of the military. For some, removal is less about a paycheck and more about reclaiming a sense of self from a younger, more impulsive version of themselves.
What higher education often fails to admit is that it plays a role in this cycle. Universities spend heavily on branding campaigns that tell students to “make their mark,” “be fearless,” or “define your identity.” In campus environments where these messages blend with alcohol, peer pressure, and instant access to tattoo parlors, the permanence of a decision is rarely emphasized. Just as with signing loan papers, the cost comes later—often at a time when money is tight and options are few.
The irony is that both industries—higher education and tattoo removal—present themselves as pathways to a better self. One promises the power to transform your future; the other promises to erase your past. And in both cases, it is the young, the inexperienced, and the financially vulnerable who pay the highest price.
Tattoos are not inherently mistakes. They can be art, heritage, or deeply personal affirmations. But when permanence meets the fluid identity of early adulthood, the risk of regret is real. If universities truly see themselves as guiding students toward informed choices, they might start by being honest about the permanence—not just of ink, but of all life decisions made in the shadow of campus marketing campaigns.
Sources:
Fortune Business Insights, Tattoo Removal Market Size, Share, Trends (2024)
GQ, “Why Is Everyone Getting Their Tattoos Removed?” (2024)
WiFi Talents, Tattoo Regret Statistics (2024)
ZipDo, Tattoo Regret Statistics (2024)
NCBI, “Tattoo Removal and Regret: A Cross-Sectional Analysis” (2023)
Despite federal attitudes and policies toward international students, demand to study in the U.S. remains high.
Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Getty Images
Advocates for international students are raising alarms that federal actions are limiting foreign-born learners’ ability to study in the U.S. But researchers say the trend isn’t an indication of international student interest or demand to study in the U.S.
A late July survey of 300 foreign-born students found 91 percent plan to study in the U.S., despite funding cuts and internal instability in the U.S. The reputation of U.S. institutions also has yet to take a hit, with 99 percent of respondents indicating they still trust the academic quality of U.S. institutions.
That’s not to say students are unaware of or undeterred by changes at the federal level. Fifty-five percent of survey respondents indicated some level of concern about pursuing their degree in the U.S., and 50 percent said they’re less excited about the opportunity now than they were previously. The top reason their sentiment has changed is international tensions or politics (54 percent), followed by worries about political instability in the U.S. (45 percent).
Brian Meagher, vice president at Shorelight, a higher education consulting group focused on international students, said at an Aug. 12 media roundtable that even students caught in the visa backlog haven’t shifted their gaze to other countries yet. Instead, they are deferring to the spring semester. May data from the U.S. Department of State shows 19,000 fewer students received a F-1 or J-1 visa that month compared to May 2024, which experts say is the first sign that a fraction of expected students will be coming to campus this fall.
“Most of them want [to study in] the U.S.—they’re not changing their minds to the U.K. or Canada or Australia,” Meagher said. “We do think there will be a longer-term impact on switching to other country destinations as a result of this.”
Others are taking classes online at their host institution or enrolling in a satellite campus elsewhere in the world for their first term, but those are less popular options, Meagher said.
“In talking with prospective students, I’d say the belief is that this is a temporary changeover at an unfortunate time that may result in missing a fall semester,” Shorelight CEO Tom Dretler said during the roundtable.
Long-Term Challenges Expected
While international students see the changes as a short-term setback, some market predictions forecast significant changes to U.S. higher education enrollment and revenue. At least the lack of visas could impact future applications to U.S. colleges, Dretler said.
Research by Holon IQ, a global intelligence agency, points to the U.S. as a top destination country for international students for decades, but since 2016—roughly the start of the first Trump administration—the country lost 10 percentage points of its share of international students.
Starting in 2016, “the U.S. became perceived by some as less welcoming or safe, did not recruit international students as energetically, and denied a substantial fraction of student visa applications, while governments and university sectors in the other countries acted in concert to grow international student numbers,” according to an August report from Holon IQ.
Modeling by Holon IQ finds that a variety of actions by the federal government, including visa policy changes, a crackdown on universities and new tariffs could create barriers to students in the U.S. as well as a climate of uncertainty for prospective students.
The agency predicts the most likely trajectory is there will be a short-term decline in U.S. international enrollment, with 1.12 million students in 2030, unchanged from 2023 levels. But possible scenarios range from an increase in students of 8.3 percent to a drop of 7.9 percent by 2030.
“I think what’s happening in the U.S. is a point in time as to whether the U.S. will continue to lead and for how long it will continue to remain the global leader for international student mobility and a desired study destination,” said Patrick Brothers, co-CEO of Holon IQ Global Impact Intelligence, during the media roundtable.
Paying the Price
Experts warn that a lack of students on campus could mean billions in lost tuition revenue for years to come.
NAFSA, the association of international educators, reported if the number of new international student enrollment declined between 30 and 40 percent, it would result in a 15 percent drop in overall international enrollment and result in a loss of $7 billion in revenue.
June data from Shorelight found even a 20 percent decline would result in a $1.7 billion annual loss in tuition revenue, or $5 billion over four years.
“We think it’s going to be something that is negative for the U.S. economy, negative from a jobs perspective and also very hurtful to colleges and universities, but not always the one that people think,” Dretler said. Top universities will be able to weather the financial hit, pulling students off their waiting lists, but regional and community colleges will experience greater losses, which could increase tuition rates for middle-class families.
States with high international student enrollment would be hit hardest by the changes. Among the top states for international students—California, New York and Texas—Shorelight anticipates a total loss of $566.6 million and NAFSA projects a loss of $2.39 billion, based on their respective data models.
Judge Stephanie Gallagher declared in the Thursday ruling that the Department of Education broke the law when it tried to withhold grant funding from institutions that practiced DEI based on one of the president’s executive orders and a related guidance letter.
In her opinion, Gallagher focused less on the legality of the attempt to ban DEI itself, but rather the process through which the president and secretary of education tried to do so.
“This court takes no view as to whether the policies at issue in this case are good or bad, prudent or foolish, fair or unfair. But, at this stage too, it must closely scrutinize whether the government went about creating and implementing them in the manner the law requires. Here, it did not,” the judge wrote. “By leapfrogging important procedural requirements, the government has unwittingly run headfirst into serious constitutional problems.”
That said, she did explain the ways Trump’s policy violated the Constitution, saying, “The government cannot proclaim that it ‘will no longer tolerate’ speech it dislikes because of its ‘motivating ideology’—that is a ‘blatant’ and ‘egregious’ violation of the First Amendment.”
Gallagher’s decision followed a motion for summary judgment that was filed by the plaintiffs, the American Federation of Teachers and the American Sociological Association, after they won a preliminary injunction that blocked parts of Trump’s anti-DEI policy since April. (Gallagher was appointed by Trump during his first presidency in 2018.)
Since the Education Department’s anti-DEI guidance was enjoined, the Trump administration has made other attempts to block the same academic practices. Most recently, the Department of Justice published a nine-page memo that stated that DEI is unlawful and discriminatory.
Still, AFT president Randi Weingarten viewed the ruling as a “huge win” against Trump’s “draconian attacks on the essence of public education.”
“This decision rightly strikes down the government’s attempt to dictate curriculum, and, in so doing, upholds the purpose and promise inherent in our public schools,” Weingarten said in a news release.
In the old American dreambook, a “college prospect” was a young person with ambition and promise—a student looking for a campus where they could grow intellectually, socially, and economically. But in today’s reality, “prospect” is an industry term, a sales category. In enrollment management suites across the country, prospective students aren’t just applicants; they’re targets.
[Image from Brown University, August 2025)
Higher education—whether elite, public, or for-profit—now runs on sophisticated marketing pipelines. The same predictive analytics used by corporations, political campaigns, and even law enforcement are deployed to track, segment, and convert students into paying customers. Colleges buy and sell student data from standardized test companies, online lead generators, and high school surveys. They follow “prospects” through their clicks, their campus visits, their FAFSA submissions—nudging them toward a deposit with personalized emails, algorithmically timed text messages, and calculated financial aid offers.
This is not about education first. It’s about yield rates, tuition revenue, and net tuition per student. For working-class families, first-generation students, and those from marginalized backgrounds, this targeting can be especially dangerous. The glossy brochures and “student success” slogans conceal the hard realities: inflated tuition, debt burdens that can last decades, and career outcomes far less rosy than advertised.
The for-profit sector perfected this playbook. Schools like Corinthian Colleges, ITT Tech, and the Art Institutes honed high-pressure recruiting scripts, built massive lead databases, and saturated social media feeds with ads promising quick career training and big paydays. When many of these institutions collapsed under federal scrutiny, their tactics didn’t disappear—they spread. Today, public universities and elite private schools use their own version of the same system, dressed up in more respectable branding.
At the top end of the prestige ladder, “targets” have a different profile. Elite schools scout “development prospects”—wealthy families whose applications are accompanied by the potential for multimillion-dollar gifts. The student is both a potential enrollee and a future donor pipeline. Recruitment here is less about financial aid and more about legacy admissions, networking dinners, and quiet tours with the president.
What all this targeting has in common is an imbalance of information. Colleges know almost everything about their prospects—income bands, likely majors, ability to pay—while students and families often have only the marketing copy and a sticker price. In this environment, independent, transparent information is a rare form of defense.
That’s where tools like TuitionFit and the CollegeViability app come in—not as recruitment aids, but as counterintelligence for families.
TuitionFit collects and shares real financial aid offers from students across the country. This allows families to see what schools are actually charging students with similar academic and financial profiles—not just the “average” cost schools advertise. By revealing the hidden discounting game, TuitionFit helps families avoid overpaying and resist the psychological pressure of “limited-time offers” from admissions officers.
The CollegeViability app compiles public financial data from the U.S. Department of Education and other sources to create an at-a-glance picture of an institution’s fiscal health. It tracks enrollment trends, tuition dependency, debt loads, and other risk factors—warning signs that a college might be on the verge of closing or slashing programs. Families who use it can see trouble coming long before the next headline about a sudden campus shutdown.
These are not small benefits. Every year, thousands of students are lured into institutions that overpromise and underdeliver. Some are blindsided by mid-program closures. Others graduate into underemployment with six figures of debt. Without tools like TuitionFit and CollegeViability, many would walk into these situations blind.
The troubling truth is that higher education’s recruitment machine treats students the same way a corporate sales funnel treats customers—and sometimes the way a military intelligence operation treats enemy assets. Prospects are acquired, qualified, engaged, and converted. They are ranked by “propensity to enroll,” courted by carefully timed contact, and celebrated in quarterly revenue reports.
The people making the targeting decisions rarely bear the costs of a bad outcome. If a student drops out with debt and no degree, it’s a personal tragedy, not a liability on the college’s balance sheet. If a school shutters with no warning, students and their families are left scrambling while administrators move on to new posts elsewhere.
College should be more than a precision-marketed capture. It should be a transparent, good-faith exchange where both sides have access to the same essential facts. Right now, that balance doesn’t exist—and the gap is being exploited.
Families who want to survive the recruitment gauntlet must treat it for what it is: a sales process backed by data analytics, designed to maximize institutional revenue, not student outcomes. That means using every independent resource available, asking hard questions, and refusing to be rushed into decisions.
In the end, the difference between being a college prospect and a college target might be whether you’re armed with real information—or just hope.
Sources:
The Century Foundation, College Admissions and the Business of Enrollment Management
U.S. Senate HELP Committee, For Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success
The Hechinger Report, How Colleges Use Big Data to Target Students
Leon Black, the billionaire co-founder and former chief executive officer of Apollo Global Management, maintained a financial relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein that lasted for years and ultimately contributed to Black’s resignation from the firm. Why should HEI be covering this old story? Because the theme, of profits over people, is a major theme in the dirty world of business that permeates US higher education.
Profits Over People
Apollo Global Management, the firm Black co-founded, is one of the world’s largest alternative asset managers, with hundreds of billions of dollars in assets under management across private equity, credit, and real estate. In 2016, Apollo, along with the Vistria Group and Najafi Companies, acquired Apollo Education Group, the parent company of theUniversity of Phoenix, for over $1.1 billion. The University of Phoenix remains under the control of these owners and continues to operate as a for-profit institution.
Critics of private equity and venture capital in education argue that such firms are driven by short-term profitability rather than long-term institutional quality. This can lead to aggressive marketing, high tuition, cuts to faculty and staff, and diminished student outcomes. In the case of Apollo Global Management’s ownership of the University of Phoenix, concerns have persisted about the potential for cost-cutting and profit-maximizing strategies to undermine the educational mission. For-profit colleges owned by large investment firms have been accused in the past of prioritizing shareholder returns over student success, adding another layer to the public scrutiny of both Apollo and the institutions it controls.
Ties Between Leon Black and Jeffrey Epstein
Between 2012 and 2017, Black paid Jeffrey Epstein approximately $158 million for what he described as financial advice, including tax and estate planning services. A March 2025 report from the Senate Finance Committee revealed that the total amount transferred to Epstein was closer to $170 million, about $12 million more than previously disclosed. In 2023, Black agreed to pay $62.5 million to the U.S. Virgin Islands to settle claims that some of his payments to Epstein were used to support Epstein’s illicit operations. Black has said publicly that his association with Epstein was a “horrible mistake” and has emphasized that had he known more about Epstein’s criminal activities, he would have cut ties sooner.
Although Black has described his relationship with Epstein as limited, records show that Epstein became one of the original trustees of the Leon Black Family Foundation in 1997. Black also contributed a handwritten poem to a 2003 “50th birthday book” for Epstein, an item that included greetings from other prominent figures. In January 2021, following an independent review by the law firm Dechert LLP that detailed the payments to Epstein, Black announced that he would step down as CEO of Apollo Global Management.
Black has faced several legal challenges connected to allegations of sexual misconduct, many of which reference Epstein. In 2023, “Jane Doe” filed a lawsuit claiming she was assaulted by Black at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse; in April 2025, her lawyers sought to withdraw from the case. In another case, accuser Cheri Pierson alleged rape but withdrew her lawsuit in early 2024. A separate suit filed by Guzel Ganieva, which accused Black of abuse and coercion involving Epstein, was dismissed in 2023. Black has consistently denied any wrongdoing.
