Colleges across the United States are facing an alarming increase in “ghost students”—fraudulent applicants who infiltrate online enrollment systems, collect financial aid, and vanish before delivering any academic engagement. The problem, fueled by advances in artificial intelligence and weaknesses in identity verification processes, is undermining trust, misdirecting resources, and placing real students at risk.
What Is a Ghost Student?
A ghost student is not simply someone who drops out. These are fully fabricated identities—sometimes based on stolen personal information, sometimes entirely synthetic—created to fraudulently enroll in colleges. Fraudsters use AI tools to generate admissions essays, forge transcripts, and even produce deepfake images and videos for identity verification.
Once enrolled, ghost students typically sign up for online courses, complete minimal coursework to stay active long enough to qualify for financial aid, and then disappear once funds are disbursed.
Scope and Impact
The scale of the problem is significant and growing:
California community colleges flagged approximately 460,000 suspicious applications in a single year—nearly 20% of the total—resulting in more than $11 million in fraudulent aid disbursements.
The College of Southern Nevada reported losing $7.4 million to ghost student fraud in one semester.
At Century College in Minnesota, instructors discovered that roughly 15% of students in a single course were fake enrollees.
California’s overall community college system reported over $13 million in financial aid losses in a single year due to such schemes—a 74% increase from the previous year.
The consequences extend beyond financial loss. Course seats are blocked from legitimate students. Faculty spend hours identifying and reporting ghost students. Institutional data becomes unreliable. Most importantly, public trust in higher education systems is eroded.
Why Now?
Several developments have enabled this rise in fraud:
The shift to online learning during the pandemic decreased opportunities for in-person identity verification.
AI tools—such as large language models, AI voice generators, and synthetic video platforms—allow fraudsters to create highly convincing fake identities at scale.
Open-access policies at many institutions, particularly community colleges, allow applications to be submitted with minimal verification.
Budget cuts and staff shortages have left many colleges without the resources to identify and remove fake students in a timely manner.
How Institutions Are Responding
Colleges and universities are implementing multiple strategies to fight back:
Identity Verification Tools
Some institutions now require government-issued IDs matched with biometric verification—such as real-time selfies with liveness detection—to confirm applicants’ identities.
Faculty-Led Screening
Instructors are being encouraged to require early student engagement via Zoom, video introductions, or synchronous activities to confirm that enrolled students are real individuals.
Policy and Federal Support
The U.S. Department of Education will soon require live ID verification for flagged FAFSA applicants. Some states, such as California, are considering application fees or more robust identity checks at the enrollment stage.
AI-Driven Pattern Detection
Tools like LightLeap.AI and ID.me are helping institutions track unusual behaviors such as duplicate IP addresses, linguistic patterns, and inconsistent documentation to detect fraud attempts.
Recommendations for HEIs
To mitigate the risk of ghost student infiltration, higher education institutions should:
Implement digital identity verification systems before enrollment or aid disbursement.
Train faculty and staff to recognize and report suspicious activity early in the semester.
Deploy AI tools to detect patterns in application and login data.
Foster collaboration across institutions to share data on emerging fraud trends.
Communicate transparently with students about new verification procedures and the reasons behind them.
Why It Matters
Ghost student fraud is more than a financial threat—it is a systemic risk to educational access, operational efficiency, and institutional credibility. With AI-enabled fraud growing in sophistication, higher education must act decisively to safeguard the integrity of enrollment, instruction, and student support systems.
In SRHE News and Blog a series of posts is chronicling, decade by decade, the progress of SRHE since its foundation 60 years ago in 1965. As always, our memories are supported by some music of the times.
1995 was the year of the war in Bosnia and the Srebrenica massacre, the collapse of Barings Bank, and the Oklahoma Bombing. OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murder. US President Bill Clinton visited Ireland. President Nelson Mandela celebrated as South Africa won the Rugby World Cup, Blackburn Rovers won the English Premier League. Cliff Richard was knighted, Blur-v-Oasis fought the battle of Britpop, and Robbie Williams left Take That, causing heartache for millions. John Major was UK Prime Minister and saw off an internal party challenge to be re-elected as leader of the Conservative Party. It would be two years until D-Ream sang ‘Things can only get better’ as the theme tune for the election of New Labour in 1997. Microsoft released Windows 95, and Bill Gates became the world’s richest man. Media, news and communication had not yet been revolutionised by the internet.
“The 1990s has been the decade of quality in higher education. There had been mechanisms for ensuring the quality of higher education for decades prior to the 1990s, including the external examiner system in the UK and other Commonwealth countries, the American system of accreditation, and government ministerial control in much of Europe and elsewhere in the world. The 1990s, though, saw a change in the approach to higher education quality.”
In his own retrospective for the European Journal of Education on the previous decade of ‘interesting times’, Guy Neave (Twente) agreed there had been a ‘frenetic pace of adjustment’ but
“Despite all that is said about the drive towards quality, enterprise, efficiency and accountability and despite the attention lavished on devising the mechanics of their operation, this revolution in institutional efficiency has been driven by the political process.”
Europe saw institutional churn with the formation of many new university institutions – over 60 in Russia during 1985-1995 in the era of glasnost, and many others elsewhere, including Dublin City University and University of Limerick in 1989. Dublin Institute of Technology, created in 1992, would spend 24 years just waiting for the chance[1] to become a technological university. 1995 saw the establishment of Aalborg in Denmark and several new Chinese universities including Guangdong University of Technology.
UK HE in 1995
In the UK the HE participation rate had more than doubled between 1970 (8.4%) and 1990 (19.4%) and then it grew even faster, reaching 33% by 2000. At the end of 1994-1995 there were almost 950,000 full-time students in UK HE. Michael Shattock’s 1995 paper ‘British higher education in 2025’ fairly accurately predicted a 55% APR by 2025.
There had been seismic changes to UK HE in the 1980s and early 1990s. Polytechnic directors had for some years been lobbying for an escape from unduly restrictive local authority bureaucratic controls, under which many institutions had, for example, not even been allowed to hold bank accounts in their own names. Even so, the National Advisory Body for Public Sector HE (NAB), adroitly steered by its chair Christopher Ball (Warden of Keble) and chief executive John Bevan, previously Director of Education for the Inner London Education Authority, had often outmanoeuvred the University Grants Committee (UGC) led by Peter Swinnerton-Dyer (Cambridge). By developing the idea of the ‘teaching unit of resource’ NAB had arguably embarrassed the UGC into an analysis which declared that universities were slightly less expensive for teaching, and the (significant) difference was the amount spent on research – hence determining the initial size of total research funding, then called QR.
Local authorities realised too slowly that controlling large polytechnics as if they were schools was not appropriate. Their attempt to head off reforms was articulated in Management for a Purpose[2], a report on Good Management Practice (GMP) prepared under the auspices of NAB, which aimed to retain local authority strategic control of the institutions which they had, after all, created and developed. It was too little, too late. (I was joint secretary to the GMP group: I guess, now it’s time, for me to give up.) Secretary of State Kenneth Baker’s 1987 White Paper Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge was followed rapidly by the so-called ‘Great Education Reform Bill’, coming onto the statute book as the Education Reform Act 1988. The Act took the polytechnics out of local authorities, recreating them as independent higher education corporations; it dissolved the UGC and NAB and set up the Universities Funding Council (UFC) and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council (PCFC). Local authorities were left high and dry and government didn’t think twice, with the inevitable progression to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. The 1992 Act dissolved PCFC and UFC and set up Higher Education Funding Councils for England (HEFCE) and Wales (HEFCW). It also set up a new Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) for colleges reconstituted as FE corporations and dissolved the Council for National Academic Awards. The Smashing Pumpkins celebrated “the resolute urgency of now”, FE and HE had “come a long way” but Take That sensibly advised “Never forget where you’ve come here from”,
The Conservative government was not finished yet, and the Education Act 1994 established the Teacher Training Agency and allowed students to opt out of students’ unions. Debbie McVitty for Wonkhe looked back on the 1990s through the lens of general election manifestos:
“By the end of the eighties, the higher education sector as we know it today had begun to take shape. The first Research Assessment Exercise had taken place in 1986, primarily so that the University Grants Committee could draw from an evidence base in its decision about where to allocate limited research funding resources. … a new system of quality assessment had been inaugurated in 1990 under the auspices of the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals (CVCP) …
Unlike Labour and the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats have quite a lot to say about higher education in the 1992 election, pledging both to grow participation and increase flexibility”
In 1992 the Liberal Democrats also pledged to abolish student loans … but otherwise many of their ideas “would surface in subsequent HE reforms, particularly under New Labour.” Many were optimistic: “Some might say, we will find a brighter day.”
In UK HE, as elsewhere, quality was a prominent theme. David Watson wrote a famous paper for the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) in 2006, Who Killed What in the Quality Wars?, about the 1990s battles involving HE institutions, QAA and HEFCE. Responding to Richard Harrison’s Wonkhe blog about those quality wars on 23 June 2025, Paul Greatrix blogged the next day about
“… the bringing together of the established and public sector strands of UK higher education sector following the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act. Although there was, in principle, a unified HE structure after that point, it took many more years, and a great deal of argument, to establish a joined-up approach to quality assurance. But that settlement did not last and there are still major fractures in the regime …”
SRHE’s chairs from 1985-1995 were Gareth Williams, Peter Knight, Susan Weil, John Sizer and Leslie Wagner. The Society’s administrator Rowland Eustace handed over in 1991 to Cynthia Iliffe; Heather Eggins then became Director in 1993. Cynthia Iliffe and Heather Eggins had both worked at CNAA, which facilitated a relocation of the SRHE office from the University of Surrey to CNAA’s base at 334-354 Gray’s Inn Road, London from 1991-1995. From the top floor at Gray’s Inn Road the Society then relocated to attic rooms in 3 Devonshire St, London, shared with the Council for Educational Technology.
In 1993 SRHE made its first Newer Researcher Award, to Heidi Safia Mirza (then at London South Bank). For its 30th anniversary SRHE staged a debate: ‘This House Prefers Higher Education in 1995 to 1965’, proposed by Professor Graeme Davies and Baroness Pauline Perry, and opposed by Dr Peter Knight and Christopher Price. My scant notes of the occasion do not, alas, record the outcome, but say only: “Now politics is dead on the campus. Utilitarianism rules. Nationalisation produces mediocrity. Quangos quell dissent. Arid quality debate. The dull uniformity of 1995. Some students are too poor.”, which rather suggest that the opposers (both fluent and entertaining speakers) had the better of it. Whether the past or the future won, we just had to roll with it. The debate was prefaced by two short papers from Peter Scott (then at Leeds) on ‘The Shape of Higher Education to Come’, and Gareth Williams (Lancaster) on ‘ Higher Education – the Next Thirty Years’.
Research into higher education was still a small enough field for SRHE to produce a Register of Members’ Research Interests in 1996, including Ron Barnett (UCL) (just getting started after only his first three books), Tony Becher, Ernest Boyer, John Brennan, Sally Brown, Rob Cuthbert, Jurgen Enders, Dennis Farrington, Oliver Fulton, Mary Henkel, Maurice Kogan, Richard Mawditt, Ian McNay, David Palfreyman, Gareth Parry, John Pratt, Peter Scott (in Leeds at the time), Harold Silver, Maria Slowey, Bill Taylor, Paul Trowler, David Watson, Celia Whitchurch, Maggie Woodrow, and Mantz Yorke. SRHE members and friends, “there for you”. But storm clouds were gathering for the Society as it entered the next, financially troubled, decade.
If you’ve read this far I hope you’re enjoying the musical references, or perhaps objecting to them (Rob Gresham, Paul Greatrix, I’m looking at you). There will be two more blogs in this series – feel free to suggest musical connections with HE events in or around 2005 or 2015, just email me at [email protected]. Or if you want to write an alternative history blog, just do it.
Rob Cuthbert is editor of SRHE News and the SRHE Blog, Emeritus Professor of Higher Education Management, University of the West of England and Joint Managing Partner, Practical Academics. Email [email protected]. Twitter/X @RobCuthbert. Bluesky @robcuthbert22.bsky.social.
[1] I know this was from the 1970s, but a parody version revived it in 1995
[2]National Advisory Body (1987) Management for a purpose Report of the Good Management Practice Group London: NAB
Denmark’s world-leading success in commercializing research should not be written off as a one-off confined to the country’s booming weight loss drug industry, a Nobel-winning scientist has argued.
Since Novo Nordisk’s diabetes treatment Ozempic was sold as weight-loss drug Wegovy, the Danish biotech company has quickly grown into one of the world’s biggest companies and Denmark’s largest single corporate taxpayer, contributing almost $4 billion in corporate taxes in the year ending March 2025—about half of the country’s total corporate take.
A further $3.8 billion in income taxes—which can reach up to 56 percent for higher earners—was also collected from Novo Nordisk staff in 2024.
That success has led to major interest in how Denmark’s model of combined strong fundamental and applied research paid off so spectacularly and whether it can be replicated, although some pundits have wondered whether the serendipitous discovery of Ozempic—whose roots lie in research on snake venom—represents a one-shot for its industrial science sector.
Speaking to Times Higher Education, however, the Nobel laureate Morten Meldal, who is professor of chemistry at the University of Copenhagen, said Novo Nordisk’s story should not be seen as an outlier in Danish research but one of many prosperous science-based companies based in the country of just six million people.
“Novo Nordisk is the result of Denmark’s system—its success is directly attributable to how our society operates: We have high taxes, but those taxes result in huge tax-exempt industrial foundations funding science and creating opportunities for both academic and industrial success. That is why Novo Nordisk happened in Denmark,” said Meldal, who won the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 2022.
While Novo Nordisk—whose $570 billion valuation last year was famously larger than Denmark’s entire GDP—has captured the interest of research policymakers, it should be understood in a wider context of sustained investment in research from industry, he added.
“Look at Novozymes, Maersk, Carlsberg—if you consider how much our companies invest in research, it is far more than the government. Novo Nordisk has the blockbuster product now, but it arrived within the context of our system—there are lots of companies doing well by commercializing research.”
Noting the advances made by U.S.-based Eli Lilly, which has two medications—Mounjaro and Zepbound—approved for use by American regulators, Meldal predicted that Novo Nordisk’s undisputed advantage in this area will eventually be eroded. But Denmark’s system will produce other big science success stories, said the biochemist, who leads the synthesis group in the chemistry department at the Carlsberg Laboratory.
“We have won so much with Novo Nordisk, but its scientific success is the rule, not the exception,” he said, underlining the importance of basic research to create the opportunities of tomorrow.
Denmark’s success in research has an even simpler root, continued Meldal, who was speaking at the annual Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting held in southern Germany last month.
“The best investment that any country can make is education; the payback on this is huge, and that allows for other investments, such as science. To do this you need our high-tax system and a government dedicated to long-term success of the entire society,” he said.
“My advice to any country who wants Denmark’s system of science is simple: Pay your taxes with joy and ask for return on investment for the community.”
Ever since 15 private colleges and universities teamed up to launch the Common App 50 years ago, the college admissions form has shifted practices and technology to meet the changing needs of institutions and students.
For instance, the latest iteration of the application, which opened Aug. 1 for the 2026–27 academic year, has what the organization calls a “refreshed look” and a new question that allows students to share their experiences with working at a paid job or taking care of their siblings. Common App, the nonprofit that runs the portal, piloted the Responsibilities and Circumstances question over the last three years, which showed in part “the importance of giving students space—beyond the personal essay—to share how these factors have shaped their high school experience,” the organization wrote in its innovation guide.
Common App is continuing to build out its Direct Admissions program, in which eligible students get an admissions offer before they actually apply. In its second year, 119 institutions have participated in the initiative and more than 700,000 students received offers.
Nearly 1.5 million first-time applicants completed the Common App in the 2024–25 cycle, submitting more than 10 million applications, according to a report released this week. That included just over 571,000 first-generation students—a 14 percent increase compared to the previous cycle. The Common App is aiming to continue to increase the number of applicants who are first-generation and from low- or middle-income households as it seeks to close equity gaps.
For this current cycle, more than 1,100 institutions are participating in the Common App, which includes 10 community colleges—yet another change for the organization aimed at ensuring students know about the available opportunities.
As the organization marks its 50th anniversary, CEO Jenny Rickard sat down with Inside Higher Ed to talk about how the Common App has changed over the years and what’s next. The conversation has been edited for clarity and length.
Q: How has the founding and the history of Common App influenced the organization today?
Jenny Rickard has led Common App since 2016.
A: The thing about Common App that is unique is how its mission actually has not changed over the 50 years of history. It still is an organization that is governed by our members. The mission has always been to simplify the admission process to enable more students to gain access to higher education. So the idea of trying to simplify the college application process by collaborating and working with all the different stakeholders in the admission process—that include students, applicants, school counselors and, obviously, admission officers—is how we go about developing this application, and it’s critically important that we listen to all of those different constituencies. Over the 50 years of Common App, what has changed is technology and the demand for higher education has continued to grow over that time. Just as the times have changed, we’ve expanded the types of institutions that we serve. As a result of that, the students and the different high schools or secondary schools that we’re able to reach.
Q: As the demographics of who is attending college have changed, Common App has made an effort to adjust to that, such as working to better serve financially independent students. So what are the biggest demographic shifts happening now and that you see coming in the applicant pool over the next few years? And how are you looking to accommodate and invest in those changes?
A: I think one of the main challenges over the past 50 years has actually been reaching different socioeconomic groups. So our moon shot that we launched to close our gap in the income bands of students using Common App shined a light on the access challenges that higher ed has faced. And some of the initiatives that we have launched are to address that gap—70 percent of the students using Common App to apply to college are from above the national median income and 30 percent are below. And that’s something that has been pretty constant in the college admissions space. We’re working through some of the initiatives that we’ve launched to reach out to more low- and middle-income students who may not think that college is something that’s possible for them, to let them know it is possible and you can go to college, and colleges would love to see you there.
So it’s trying to go beyond addressing some of what I’d call the logistical barriers that students face to apply to college and get to some of the social and economic barriers that students face in applying to college. The main theme of what we’re trying to accomplish these days is expanding access to students who have felt that higher education may not be attainable for them.
Q: One of those initiatives is direct admissions. Why is that something you wanted to invest in and how’s the program going?
A: There are students who won’t even create a Common App account because they fear that rejection. And so one of the things that we’re working on is, how do we give students the positive reinforcement that you are going to be able to find a college? There are colleges that would love to enroll you. That can then inspire them to not only perhaps apply to some of the colleges that are reaching out to them, but also maybe think more broadly about where they might want to go to school and understand that they have some agency in this process.
How we went about doing our direct admission work was inspired by the state of Idaho that had launched a program to let high school students know about the state institutions that they could get into. And we looked at that and thought, “Wow, what could Common App do nationally to help students in states that may not have a direct admission program, but also be able to expose them to the 1,100 colleges and universities that are members of this nonprofit membership association?”
We did three different pilots to email students. We worked on the language and tried to understand from the student perspective what they were experiencing. We worked with our member colleges to understand the process from their vantage point as well as school counselors to see what might work best for their students and how to support them in this effort. And after the three pilots, we decided we could scale it and also enhance the technology so that we went beyond an email notification.
Once they’re in Common App, they can now have a dashboard to see which schools would already admit them if they just continued in the process with those institutions. Every year, we make enhancements to the process as we learn from all the different stakeholders about which aspects are supporting students the best and which are supporting the institutions the best.
Q:And the number of institutions participating in the direct admissions program is going to increase to more than 200 this fall, correct?
A: I found it overwhelming, in a really great way, that we reached out to over 700,000 individual students with direct admission offers last year. Thinking about the scale that we have and being able to provide that positive reinforcement to help encourage students to continue in the admission process and be able to attain higher education is really exciting.
Q: Certain elements of the admissions process are under scrutiny, such as concerns about standardized tests. I recently wrote about a report led by a Common App researcherthat found letters of reference for some minority groups tend to skew shorter. What do you make of those debates and how do you think college admissions will change over the next several years?
A: As technology changes and institutions look at their own way of doing their admission processes, we will continue to work with our members to understand what they are experiencing and what they are wanting in order to enroll the classes of students that they want and who will thrive on their campuses. We have a common platform, but there is also flexibility by institutional type, as well as a section for colleges to have their own questions beyond what’s on the common form. That format has provided the flexibility for us to be able to have a very diverse group of members, and also in welcoming associate’s degree–granting community colleges to the platform.
We’ve been constantly evolving as the higher education environment has evolved, as technology has evolved. When you look back at Common App 50 years ago, its technology inspiration was the photocopier, and the idea was a really great idea of admissions deans seeing that they were asking some similar questions, maybe they could streamline this process for students. And then floppy disks came along, and admissions officers and college counselors said, “We need to move into this floppy disk area.” And they quickly pivoted when the internet came out, and in 1998 launched the first online application. So we will continue to evolve. Obviously, with artificial intelligence, we’re looking into how this can assist in the process.
Q: Common App has reams of data about students’ applications, and the organization has worked to make that information more easily available. What do you see as Common App’s role in the world of higher ed research?
A: We were very grateful to the Gates Foundation who, over five years ago, awarded us a grant to create a data warehouse so that we could share nationally about trends in the college application process and help shine a light on areas where there are differences across institutions and across students. So you pointed to that research about how recommendations for some populations of students aren’t as strong as others. What does that mean? And is that a reflection of the students? Is it a reflection of the secondary schools that they might attend?
Because when you think about the great diversity of colleges, the diversity of secondary schools is that much more, and the opportunities that students have [are] so different, and being able to really highlight what that means from a student access perspective is critically important for all of us to try to make sure that students have the same level of opportunities.
So investing in that data warehouse—and that investment from the Gates Foundation—is something that has really transformed us, not just only from the research reports that we’re able to do but also during COVID, we were able to see right away that first-generation college students’ applications had really dropped off. And we were able to alert all of our members that COVID was really having an impact on first-generation college students and [look into] what we could all do to try to mitigate that negative impact.
It also has been important for us to be able to understand how students are persisting within the Common App, and to help us enhance the system to try to ensure that students are not only able to start an application but to complete the application. And we’ve been able to collaborate with organizations like the National Student Clearinghouse to see if students are persisting in college. We have beenable to add the texture that the admission application provides to the clearinghouse data to understand more about student behavior, not only in Common App but also in college.
I see that as all critical in terms of informing our broad community about the kinds of changes we might need to make or things that we might want to stop doing because it’s not helping the situation. The data has really just shined a light on a number of the challenges in the admission process and informed us about ways that we might be able to mitigate those challenges. Direct admission is one of those.
Gov. Braun has appointed the entire board at Indiana University.
Anna Moneymaker/Staff/Getty Images North America
This article has been updated to reflect changes to WFYI’s original reporting
Indiana governor Mike Braun said that Indiana University’s Board of Trustees should “take action” if allegations that President Pamela Whitten plagiarized her doctoral dissertation are true, WFYI reported.
Braun’s comments this week came in response to reporter questions about the plagiarism allegations. A report earlier this year found parts of her dissertation, published in 1996, appeared to plagiarize other academic research. IU officials brushed off that report, telling media outlets that the university investigated the plagiarism allegations in the summer of 2024 and determined the claims had no merit. But last week, a local newspaper reported new findings that indicate Whitten copied other research.
Braun, a Republican, said at a press event that he expects the board “to get on that right away,” responding to the hypothetical about the Whitten allegations. He didn’t specify how the trustees should look into the charges.
IU’s board is entirely appointed by Braun, following a change to how trustees are selected earlier this year. Previously, the governor appointed six members while three others were elected by alumni. But a provision in Indiana’s latest budget bill now gives the governor full power over who serves on the board, which he quickly exercised, selecting new trustees in June and July.
IU did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.
Gov. Braun has appointed the entire board at Indiana University.
Anna Moneymaker/Staff/Getty Images North America
This article has been updated to reflect changes to WFYI’s original reporting
Indiana governor Mike Braun said that Indiana University’s Board of Trustees should “take action” if allegations that President Pamela Whitten plagiarized her doctoral dissertation are true, WFYI reported.
Braun’s comments this week came in response to reporter questions about the plagiarism allegations. A report earlier this year found parts of her dissertation, published in 1996, appeared to plagiarize other academic research. IU officials brushed off that report, telling media outlets that the university investigated the plagiarism allegations in the summer of 2024 and determined the claims had no merit. But last week, a local newspaper reported new findings that indicate Whitten copied other research.
Braun, a Republican, said at a press event that he expects the board “to get on that right away,” responding to the hypothetical about the Whitten allegations. He didn’t specify how the trustees should look into the charges.
IU’s board is entirely appointed by Braun, following a change to how trustees are selected earlier this year. Previously, the governor appointed six members while three others were elected by alumni. But a provision in Indiana’s latest budget bill now gives the governor full power over who serves on the board, which he quickly exercised, selecting new trustees in June and July.
IU did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.
As rumors swirl that Harvard University will soon capitulate to the Trump administration and pay a $500 million fine, it’s important to speak out against university officials who bow down to authoritarianism. I’ve argued for why Columbia and Brown were wrong to settle, how their agreements endanger academic freedom, and why these agreements leave universities more vulnerable to future attacks by the Trump regime.
But it is also important to reiterate the fact that the reasons cited by the Trump administration for why Harvard must pay this money are lies. The Trump administration’s assertion that Harvard has committed antisemitic discrimination against Jews is a series of falsehoods fabricated by an antisemitic president and his obedient bureaucrats who seek to punish their perceived political enemies on fraudulent grounds.
On June 30, 2025, the Trump administration’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism issued the finding that “Harvard University is in violent violation of Title VI.” No one knows what a “violent” violation is, since this bizarre term has never been used before, but the result was inevitable. Since Harvard had already been punished for imagined antisemitism far more harshly than any college in American history, with billions of dollars in grants cut off without due process, the finding of guilt was an inevitable ex post facto determination.
Still, it’s important to examine this absurd finding of antisemitism at Harvard in depth, because it sets a standard that all colleges will be expected to obey, and because it requires the worst attacks on free speech ever ordered by the federal government.
Most of the government’s report comes not from any investigation of its own, but from Harvard’s own self-examination of antisemitism on campus. The Trump administration’s Notice of Violation against Harvard is almost comical for its lack of evidence of any wrongdoing committed by Harvard.
The Trump administration concluded, “We find that these and other actions contributed to a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students at Harvard,” citing a large number of cases of people engaged in peaceful expression, including several silent “study-in” protests at Harvard libraries. Incredibly, Harvard’s unjustifiable repression of silent, nondisruptive protests, which included banning dozens of students and faculty from the library, was used by the government as evidence that Harvard has done too little to protect Jewish students.
When carrying a piece of paper into a library is punished by Harvard, it’s a travesty. When Harvard punishes its students and faculty for carrying a piece of paper into a library and this is cited by the government as insufficiently repressive of free speech, it’s a disaster.
This also shows why Harvard may be willing to cut a deal with the government, despite the humiliation required to bow down before Trump: The repression demanded by the Trump regime is precisely what the Harvard administration has inflicted upon its students and faculty and wants to expand. Censorship is not an unfortunate side effect of any deal with Trump; it may be Harvard’s goal to use this agreement to provide an excuse for crushing dissent even more than it already has.
The other primary evidence against Harvard cited by the Trump administration was a 2024 Harvard survey of 2,295 students, faculty and staff that found 61 percent of Jewish respondents felt there were academic or professional repercussions for expressing their political beliefs, and 15 percent of Jewish respondents said they did not feel physically safe on campus. But the Notice of Violation completely omits the fact that the same survey found that a much higher proportion of Muslims feared professional repercussions (92 percent) and feared for their physical safety (47 percent).
The surveys indicate that Islamophobia at Harvard is a far worse problem than antisemitism. Yet Harvard hasn’t taken any significant actions against Islamophobia, and Harvard hasn’t adopted a new definition of Islamophobia to prohibit double standards in criticizing Muslim nations. And the Trump administration has done nothing despite the far greater fears expressed by Muslims at Harvard.
Is there antisemitism at Harvard? Sure, there’s antisemitism everywhere, just as there is racism, sexism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia and every other form of bigotry. But we don’t hold universities responsible for banning these ideas under threat of massive government retaliation. In fact, we demand exactly the opposite: Colleges must protect hateful ideas and refuse to censor them.
Far from being “deliberately indifferent” to antisemitism as the Notice of Violation claims, Harvard has bent over backward to suppress free speech, ban protests, denounce its own students and faculty, and punish people without due process, all in the name of censoring criticism of Israel. It’s difficult to name an American college that has done more to suppress free speech in the name of fighting “antisemitism” than Harvard, but no amount of repression will ever satisfy the Trump regime.
I don’t want people to think that Harvard as an institution is free from antisemitism. Harvard has indeed engaged in antisemitism and deserves condemnation for doing so. In April, Harvard administrators banned Jews from holding a Passover seder, by far the most clear-cut example of institutional antisemitism at Harvard. Banning Jews from conducting a religious ceremony on campus is clearly antisemitic. But in this case, Harvard’s antisemitism was directed at Jews critical of Israel, so naturally the Trump administration completely ignores it.
Even though it’s wrong for Harvard to try to suppress Jewish religious activities for political reasons, this isolated example of antisemitic repression would not justify a government investigation, let alone a finding of a “violent violation.” Private colleges should have wide discretion to make bad decisions, even those that violate their own standards of free expression and the religious rights of their students, without being subjected to government penalties.
Likewise, the anti-Palestinian bias evident in Harvard’s repression of pro-Palestinian protests on campus is also a clear double standard and violation of Title VI’s rules protecting students based on national origin. But moral criticism, not government control, is the best way to fix the problem.
I’ve argued that the repressive demands made against Harvard by the Trump regime are a blueprint for the obedience all colleges will be required to observe. The same is true of the fake “antisemitism” finding against Harvard, which provides a model for what future Title VI “investigations” will be. The government will make a list of every protest and controversial view expressed on a campus, quote a few right-wing students looking for a Columbia-style payday about how they are trembling in fear at hearing ideas they don’t like, and conclude that the university failed to do enough to protect the sensitive feelings of conservative students against the horrors of being criticized.
Although this charade of antidiscrimination law has begun with the Trump administration pretending to care about antisemitism, it won’t be long before men start complaining about the hostile environment caused by feminists, white guys express their fear of anyone uttering the word “diversity” and, of course, all the straight people and devout Christians who are oppressed by the gays. If this kind of ridiculous evidence of “harassment” is accepted against a university for allowing free speech, then it can be equally applied by the Trump administration to any college that permits students and faculty to criticize right-wing dogmas about race, gender or sexuality.
If Harvard submits to the Trump administration, it will be endangering its own finances, abandoning the values of academic freedom and betraying its students and faculty. But even worse, Harvard’s obedience will give the Trump administration license to pursue every college, for every implausible reason, until they submit.
Academic researchers are worried that the government’s plans to stop investing in the development of messenger RNA vaccines, a technology university scientists first used to help develop the COVID-19 vaccines, will undermine the United States’ standing as a global leader in biomedical research and development.
As promising as mRNA technology may be for treating a range of maladies, including numerous types of cancer and autoimmune diseases, its role in developing the COVID vaccine has thrust it into a political crossfire, fueled by the Trump administration’s smoldering criticisms of the Biden administration’s handling of the pandemic.
Last week, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., director of the Department of Health and Human Services, who frequently cites misinformation about vaccines and other public health issues, announced that the department is winding down mRNA vaccine research under the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and canceling $500 million worth of contracts and grants with numerous biotech companies and Emory University in Atlanta.
“We reviewed the science, listened to the experts, and acted,” Kennedy, a lawyer by training, said in a statement, claiming that “thedata show these vaccines fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu. We’re shifting that funding toward safer, broader vaccine platforms that remain effective even as viruses mutate.”
Jeff Coller, director of the RNA Innovation Center at Johns Hopkins University, whose own graduate student helped develop Moderna’s COVID vaccine, said that “mRNA technology is incredibly misunderstood by the public and many of our politicians.”
Despite that, “the science has always been consistently clear about the powerful medical benefits of the mRNA platform,” he said. “It’s saved millions of lives, is incredibly safe, has huge potential and will revolutionize medicine in the next 100 years. Yet, we’re ceding American leadership in this technology.”
The half-a-billion-dollar cut comes at the same time that the Trump administration has withdrawn support for federally funded scientific research that doesn’t align with its ideological views, including projects focused on vaccine hesitancy, LGBTQ+ health and climate change.
According to a report from STAT News, the 181-page document Kennedy cited as his evidence that mRNA vaccines aren’t safe or effective references disputed studies written by other skeptics of COVID mitigation protocols, including stay-at-home orders and vaccines.
In his op-ed, Bhattacharya acknowledged that mRNA is a “promising technology” that “may yet deliver breakthroughs in treating diseases such as cancer,” but that “as a vaccine intended for broad public use, especially during a public health emergency, the platform has failed a crucial test: earning public trust.”
“Unfortunately, the Biden administration did not manage public trust in the coronavirus vaccines, largely because it chose a strategy of mandates rather than a risk-based approach and did not properly acknowledge Americans’ growing concerns regarding safety and effectiveness,” he wrote.
‘Political Shot Across the Bow’
The vast majority of scientists agree that the mRNA-based COVID vaccine—which was created in record time as a result of President Donald Trump’s Operation Warp Speed, launched in 2020—is generally safe and effective.
“I’m concerned about [the cut] weakening our country and putting us at a disadvantage,” said an mRNA researcher who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation. “The promise of mRNA is almost limitless, and I’d like to see those advances being made in this country. But currently it seems those advances are more likely to come from Europe and Asia. I’m also worried about the impact this could have on our economy—this is a growing field of industry.”
Coller, of Johns Hopkins, said Kennedy’s decision to withdraw funding for mRNA vaccine research has more than financial implications.
“It was a political shot across the bow of the entire research community, both in industry and academia,” Coller said. “What it says is that the government doesn’t want to support this technology and is going to make sure it doesn’t happen. If you’re an academic thinking about starting a new program in mRNA medicines, don’t waste your time.”
And now it will be even easier for political whims to drive the government’s scientific research priorities. Last week, Trump issued an executive order that will put political appointees—rather than subject-matter experts—in charge of federal grant-making decisions.
Heather Pierce, senior director for science policy and regulatory counsel at the Association of American Medical Colleges, said that while Kennedy’s decision won’t end all of the nation’s mRNA research, “the indication that a certain technology or scientific area won’t be pursued regardless of the progress made so far is worrisome as a concept.”
That’s in part because “when we unilaterally close the door on a specific type of research or technology, we don’t know what would have come from that,” she said. “It’s not to say that every research project using every technology and scientific tool will necessarily lead to a cure or breakthrough, but the initial funding of these projects shows that there was promise that made it worth exploring.”
Both Kennedy and Bhattacharya have said the government will continue to support research on other uses of mRNA technology unrelated to infectious disease vaccines. But experts say separating those research areas isn’t so simple.
“They’re all interconnected,” said Florian Krammer, a professor of vaccinology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. “If you take away funding in the infectious disease space and innovation doesn’t happen there, it’s also not happening in other spaces where mRNA technology is used.”
That will create a “huge problem for researchers,” he added, “because a lot of fields are using this technology, and if it’s not moving forward, it closes doors.”
The judge denied a motion for a preliminary injunction to block the anti-DEI law.
Just_Super/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Ruling in part that professors lack First Amendment protections in the classroom, a federal judge denied an effort from college faculty and students in Alabama to block a 2024 state law that banned diversity, equity and inclusion programs as well as the teaching of so-called divisive concepts.
The plaintiffs, who include students from the University of Alabama at Birmingham and professors at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, argued in court filings and at hearings that the legislation known as Senate Bill 129 amounted to state-sponsored censorship and infringed on their rights under the First and 14th Amendments. The professors alleged that they had to cancel class projects or events and faced other questions about their classroom conduct from administrators because of the law. They’ve also changed course material as a result.
R. David Proctor, chief judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, found that while the professors and the Alabama NAACP had standing to sue, they weren’t likely to succeed at this time. For instance, he ruled that the professors aren’t protected by the First Amendment because their “in-class instruction constitutes government speech.”
Furthermore, Proctor wrote, based on other rulings in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, “when there is a dispute about what is taught in the classroom, the university’s interests outweigh those of a professor, and the professor’s interest in academic freedom and free speech do not displace the university’s interest inside the classroom.”
The plaintiffs said Proctor’s ruling was disappointing.
“I feel incredibly dismayed that SB 129 is allowed to continue going into the new school year,” said Sydney Testman, one of the students who sued, in a statement. “As a senior at University of Alabama at Birmingham, I’ve seen firsthand how SB 129 has transformed my college campus for the worst. Voices have been silenced, opportunities have been revoked, and meaningful community engagement has faded. This decision undermines the need for students to properly feel a sense of belonging and inclusion on campus.”
A couple of years ago, I got into a heated argument with a white male lab mate about whether racial and gender inequities still existed in science. He argued that, having both made it to our Stanford cancer biology lab for graduate school, the two of us, a white man and a Black woman, were functionally equal, and that attempts to distinguish us in future grant and fellowship applications were unfair. When I explained, among many differences, the unequal labor I took on by running a pipeline program for underrepresented aspiring physician-scientists, he replied, “If you gave a fuck about your academic career, you would stop doing that stuff.”
His attitude is not unique; it represents a backlash against baby steps made toward any form of equity that was also reflected in the 2023 Supreme Court decision to overturn affirmative action. But in recent months, as attacks on diversity equity, and inclusion have unfolded with shockingfervor from the highest office in the country, I have been confronted with terrifying questions: Was my lab mate right? Has DEI work become antithetical to advancement in science?
Science, as a seemingly objective craft, has historically not cared about the self. Science does not care if you couldn’t spend free time in the lab because you had to work to support your family. Science does not care that the property taxes in the low-income area where you attended high school couldn’t fund a microscope to get you excited about biology. Science does not care that I’ve never once gotten to take a science class taught by a Black woman.
Such experiences, and many, many more, contribute to the leaky pipeline, a reference to how individuals with marginalized identities become underrepresented in STEM due to retention problems on the path from early science education to tenured professorships. The gaps are chasmic. A couple years ago, Science published the demographics of principal investigators receiving at least three National Institutes of Health grants, so-called super-PIs. Among the nearly 4,000 of these super-PIs, white men unsurprisingly dominated, accounting for 73.4 percent, while there was a grand total of 12 Black women in this category.
Pipeline programs—initiatives aimed at supporting individuals from underrepresented groups—are meant to patch the leaks. They are rooted in the understanding that minorities are important to science, not just for representation’s sake, but because diverse perspectives counteract a scientific enterprise that, because scientists are human, has historically perpetuated racial, gender and other social inequities. Such programs range from early-stage programs like BioBus, a mobile laboratory in New York City that exposes K–12 students to biology, to higher-level pipeline programs like the one I run at Stanford, which provide targeted early-career support to aspiring scientists from diverse and marginalized backgrounds.
These programs work. Participants in the McNair Scholars Program, a federally funded pipeline program aimed at increasing Ph.D. attainment among first-generation, low-income and otherwise underrepresented students, are almost six times more likely to enroll in graduate school than their nonparticipant counterparts. These programs are designed to see the student’s full self, and they recognize the extra labor minorities and women disproportionately take on, like mentoring trainees or running their own pipeline programs.
Researchers and academics have held rallies to stand up for science and have proposed bills for state-funded scientific research institutes, but many have remained silent on DEI. Meanwhile, after a pause to screen for DEI language, the NIH has resumed grant approvals (albeit not at its normal pace), and private organizations like Chan Zuckerberg continue to fund “uncontroversial” science. But science will never be whole without the inclusion of trainees from underrepresented backgrounds, who broaden and improve scientific questions and practice in service of a diverse human population. And without pipeline programs, the gaps will grow.
That is why I am calling on academics to stand up not just for science but also for DEI. Stand up against the leaky pipeline. Universities and private research institutes must reinstate language on diversity, equity and inclusion, particularly for pipeline programs. Faculty, students and community members should contact the heads of local universities and private organizations like Howard Hughes and Chan Zuckerberg, demanding reinstatement of diversity language and programs. Labs and research groups should adopt diversity statements reaffirming this commitment.
Given the financial jeopardy federal policy has imposed on pipeline programs, states should also step in. Sixteen state attorneys general recently sued the National Science Foundation for, among other things, reneging on its long-established, congressionally mandated commitment to building a STEM workforce that draws from underrepresented groups; states can take their advocacy further by filling funding gaps. Individuals and private organizations can donate either directly to nonprofits like BioBus or to universities with funds earmarked for pipeline programs.
Many minority students who have done DEI advocacy worry they can no longer discuss their work when applying for fellowships or faculty positions. To counteract this, universities and research organizations should proactively ask applicants about their leadership and advocacy work, to signal that these are the kinds of employees they want. And scientists who are not from underrepresented groups should leverage their privilege—volunteer for mentorship programs, serve on graduate admissions committees to fight for diversity, advise young scientists from underrepresented backgrounds.
Show my lab mate that he was wrong. Caring and succeeding are not mutually exclusive.
Tania Fabo, M.Sc., is an M.D.-Ph.D. candidate in genetics at Stanford University, a Rhodes Scholar, a Knight-Hennessy Scholar, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of the OpEd Project. She is the program leader for Stanford’s MSTP BOOST pipeline program.
