Higher Ed Unions, Student Unions, and For-Profit College Borrowers Unite Against Trump’s “Higher Education Compact”
Several higher education unions, student unions, and former students of for-profit colleges are organizing in opposition to the Trump administration’s proposed “higher education compact”—a plan heavily shaped and promoted by private-equity billionaire Marc Rowan.
Rowan, the CEO of Apollo Global Management, has played a central role in advancing this proposal. Apollo owns several predatory for-profit institutions, including the University of Phoenix, one of the most notorious offenders in the industry.
In a recentNew York Times op-ed, Rowan took public credit for the compact, writing:
“The evidence is overwhelming: outrageous costs and prolonged indebtedness for students; poor outcomes, with too many students left unable to find meaningful work after graduating…”
Yet, under Rowan’s leadership, the University of Phoenix has become the largest source of Borrower Defense claims of any for-profit school, with more than 100,000 pending applications as of July 2025. Borrower Defense is a federal protection that allows students to seek loan forgiveness if their school misled them or violated state or federal law.
The University of Phoenix has faced multiple law enforcement investigations for deceptive recruiting tactics that targeted veterans, service members, and working adults nationwide. The school’s misconduct led to a $191 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission for falsely claiming partnerships with major employers. More recently, the university attempted to portray itself as a public institution while seeking to sell to two states—both of which ultimately rejected the deal after public backlash.
While Rowan’s personal fortune exceeds $7 billion, borrowers continue to shoulder crushing debt from degrees that delivered little to no value. His leadership has fueled a system that profits from student harm—and now, through this compact, he is setting his sights on reshaping major public universities.
We refuse to stay silent. Borrowers, students, and educators are standing together to demand accountability and defend higher education from predatory perpetrators.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
New York is contributing $49 million in capital grants to 35 of the state’s private nonprofit colleges to help fund upgrades to facilities, build new labs and research spaces, and invest in new technology and equipment.
The state’s Higher Education Capital Matching Grant Program — led by a three-person board composed of political appointees — last week awarded grants ranging from tens of thousands of dollars to $5 million, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul announced on Friday.
Under the 20-year-old program, eligible colleges must invest $3 of their own money for every $1 of public funds. The next round of applications for projects is set to open in mid-December.
Dive Insight:
Since 2005, HECap has directed $369.8 million in state funding toward over 300 projects at private nonprofit colleges in New York, the governor’s office said.
The program makes the state a financial partner for private colleges, many of which were established well before the 1948 creation of the State University of New York system.
After a more than yearlong application process, the state’s HECap Board approved the latest round of projects at an Oct. 20 meeting. Colleges can use the funds to design, acquire, build, rebuild, renovate or equip buildings. Selected projects are meant to support a college’s academic offerings or student life, as well as to drive economic development in the state.
“These projects stand for our ongoing commitment to keeping New York at the forefront of education and economic opportunity,” Hochul said in a Friday statement.
The current round of combined public and institutional funds represents a $195 million capital investment in independent higher education facilities, according to Hochul’s office.
$1.8 million to Albert Einstein College of Medicine for renovations to a commons area and recreation center.
$5 million to Clarkson University for the first phase of renovations to an engineering and science complex.
$69,800 to Maria College to purchase and install technological equipment.
$1.8 million to Cornell University to build a large classroom space in a library.
$5 million to D’Youville University for renovations to a facility supporting its osteopathic medicine college.
$5 million to Hobart and William Smith Colleges for construction of a new science building and renovation of three adjacent facilities.
$1.8 million to the Rochester Institute of Technology to upgrade its electrical infrastructure.
$1.6 million to Sarah Lawrence College to create an experiential learning center.
New York’s continued public financing of capital projects comes while colleges across the country wrestle with sizable backlogs of deferred maintenance and facilities needs, many left over from the pandemic era as institutions put off those investments.
Last year, analysts with Moody’s Investor Service estimated a “hidden liability” of deferred maintenance needs at colleges potentially amounting to nearly $1 trillion — and just among the roughly 500 institutions Moody’s rated at the time.
Rising costs, high interest rates and financial pressures can make those needs all the more difficult to meet.
“Few have the necessary resources and credit strength to sustain the higher amounts needed to tackle the full extent of their infrastructure needs,” Moody’s analysts said in their report. Colleges that can’t afford upgrades face recruitment risks in enrollment and staff talent as buildings continue to deteriorate.
The backlog of projects is so large that capital spending increases on existing facilities have served only to slow the growth of unmet need, according to a report earlier this year from the building intelligence firm Gordian.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
New York City sued the U.S. Department of Education on Oct. 15 over the federal agency’s decision in September to terminate $47 million in federal funding for 19 magnet schools. The department severed the nation’s largest school system from discretionary grant funding after the agency found the New York City Department of Education violated Title IX when it set transgender-inclusive bathroom and locker room policies.
In an unprecedented measure, the Education Department, in a Sept. 16 letter, gave New York City Public Schools a short timeline of just three days to agree to overhaul its Title IX policies in response to the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights decision.
The lawsuit seeks to stop the defunding of the Magnet School Assistance Program, meant to help with desegregation and that primarily serves low-income Hispanic and Black students. OCR said in its letter to New York City that funding the grant is “no longer in the best interest of the Federal Government.”
Dive Insight:
Abruptly discontinuing Magnet School Assistance Program funds threw “into chaos and uncertainty” the future of the magnet schools as well as the 7,700 students who attend them, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit claims the cuts have also led to “the complete disruption” of the magnet schools’ specialized programming.
The Trump administration already sought to zero-out the program entirely in its proposed fiscal year 2026 budget. That, however, would require congressional approval.
“With this lawsuit, New York City Public Schools is fighting back against the U.S. Department of Education’s attack on our magnet program and transgender and gender expansive students,” said New York City Public Schools Chancellor Melissa Aviles-Ramos in an Oct. 16 statement. “U.S. DOE’s threat to cut off tens of millions of dollars in magnet funding unless we cancelled our protections for transgender and gender expansive students is contrary to federal, state, and local law, and, just as importantly, our values as New York City Public Schools.”
Districts are increasingly opting to take the administration to court in response to its federal funding threats, rather than comply with the department’s demands. Those demands often include adopting “biology-based” definitions of “male” and “female,” and in some places run against state law that require inclusive policies for transgender people.
Two large Northern Virginia school districts, for example, were among the first to sue the administration in late August after the agency decided the districts violated Title IX by allowing transgender students access to sex-segregated facilities aligning with their identities. Fairfax County and Arlington County school boards collectively have on the line $190 million, which the districts use to fund school meals for low-income students; services to students with disabilities, homeless students; and English learners, among other activities.
In these cases, the administration issued Title IX violations after very brief investigations, and provided recipients with 10 or less days to respond — as opposed to the usual 90-day timeline.
The lawsuit refers to the Times’ historic reputation as the “newspaper of record,” and that’s important for understanding the stakes of the case. The moniker speaks to the Times’ massive readership and prestige but also to an authoritative role — often setting the standards in terms of fact-checking, objectivity and independence that produce a definitive accounting of events for the record books. They’re the standards to which other newspapers are held.
In light of that role, and Trump’s continued successful shakedowns of media outlets of lesser prestige, a capitulation would be devastating. Instead, the Times has an opportunity, and an obligation, to rise to its historic role by categorically rejecting the lawsuit — and putting a stop to a particularly insidious legal idea that provides support for Trump’s media war.
The complaint, which First Amendment law professor Don Herzog calls “a press release masquerading as a lawsuit,” is a massive document that leaves ample room to hit familiar Trump beats, finding time to pick at the Times’ “deranged” endorsement of Kamala Harris and to hail Trump’s 2024 win as the “greatest personal and political achievement in American history.”
Why everything Pam Bondi said about ‘hate speech’ is wrong
The nation’s top law enforcement officer doesn’t understand there is no hate-speech exception to the First Amendment — and that’s scary.
The alleged damages center on reporting published in the pages of the Times and in the book “Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success,” written by Times reporters Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner, that suggested Trump’s multimillion-dollar inheritance from his father was largely a product of fraudulent tax evasion schemes and that Trump owes his later fortune to producer Mark Burnett’s “discovery” of him as a host for “The Apprentice.” But Trump alleges that he was already famous and thathis success with “The Apprentice” was “thanks solely to President Trump’s sui generis charisma and unique business acumen.”
Through what Trump alleges are false statements and negligent fact-finding, the lawsuit claims this reporting sought to illegally “damage President Trump’s hard-earned and world-renowned reputation for business success” and “sabotage his 2024 candidacy for President of the United States.”
The lawsuit has been met with universal dismissal by First Amendment scholars. “The complaint is full of bluster,” said Katie Fallow, deputy litigation director at Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute, but “short on any allegations of specific false statements of fact that would meet the rigorous standards for defamation claims brought by public figures.”
One part of the complaint has been a particular focus of criticism, specifically where it states that the defendants had a “desire for President Trump to fail politically and financially. Each feels actual malice towards President Trump in the colloquial sense.”
As Fallow alluded, to prove defamation Trump must show “actual malice” on the part of the Times — and that’s a tough hill to climb, even assuming that the reporting is proven to be false.
As laid out in the landmark case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, actual malice requires Trump to prove that the defendants actuallyknew their statements were false — or at least entertained actual, serious doubts about their truth. So resting this lawsuit on the idea that the defendants just really, really dislike Trump was met with predictable disbelief by legal experts.
But this section and the broader lawsuit belie something more sinister than a blustery failure to establish its claims’ basic elements. Trump believes it is — or would like it to be — legally actionable to harm his political ambitions when you really, really dislike him. In his view, reporters should be liable for statements that make people not wish to support him.
Beyond being a threat to the media, this idea is a threat to the very speech that makes up the core of our democratic process. No politician is entitled to support or votes, and to commodify them in this way is a perversion of democratic self-governance and a threat to core political speech.
And we’ve already seen Trump advance this idea in his other lawsuits against the media.
The lawsuit has been met with universal dismissal by First Amendment scholars.
When he targeted CBS News last October, he alleged billions of dollars in damages from the impact of what he claimed was “deceptive editing” of a “60 Minutes” interview with Vice President Harris on campaign fundraising and “support values.” Later that year, he targeted pollster J. Ann Selzer and The Des Moines Register, claiming her polling miss was “election interference” that required him to “expend … campaign expenditures.” With legal help from my organization, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, Selzer is fighting these bogus claims.
The New York Times must similarly take this lawsuit as an opportunity to reject this idea, full stop. Its unique role in the media industry warrants a strong and defiant message in defense of the First Amendment and the Fourth Estate that depends on it.
Anything less risks a future in which Trump’s lawfare barrels through smaller outlets that don’t have the same resources.
A negotiation and a settlement between Columbia and the Trump administration have led the administration to triumphantly charge at less resourced universities, such as George Mason University and George Washington University. As FIRE counsel Tyler Coward warned, “We said from the beginning it was going to take a big institution like Harvard or Columbia to stand up for its rights, and if they failed to do so — if they capitulated to unlawful demands from the administration — there was little hope for smaller institutions down the line.”
The New York Times, the Harvard of newspapers, should understand its role here accordingly.
Many institutions, including the SUNY system, have invested in Title VI coordinators in recent months.
Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | howtogoto/iStock/Getty Images
New York is mandating that all colleges in the state designate a coordinator to oversee investigations into discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin and shared ancestry, which is prohibited under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Gov. Kathy Hochul’s office announced Wednesday.
According to Hochul, the state is the first in the country to pass such a law.
“By placing Title VI coordinators on all college campuses, New York is combating antisemitism and all forms of discrimination head-on,” she said in the press release. “No one should fear for their safety while trying to get an education. It’s my top priority to ensure every New York student feels safe at school, and I will continue to take action against campus discrimination and use every tool at my disposal to eliminate hate and bias from our school communities.”
Many colleges have begun hiring for Title VI coordinator roles in the past several months in response to the surge in reports of antisemitism and Islamophobia following Hamas’s fatal Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israeli civilians. In some cases, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights required institutions to add these roles after finding that they failed to adequately address complaints of discrimination on their campuses.
The State University of New York system had already mandated each of its campuses to bring on a Title VI coordinator by the fall 2025 semester.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Last month’s mass shooting in New York City, like every mass shooting incident, is yet another wake-up call to education leaders and school safety experts about how to better protect their buildings and therefore the students and staff inside. This story, from our sister publication Facilities Dive, provides insight into how commercial facilities operators are responding, with takeaways for the education sector.
The mass shooting that took place in Midtown Manhattan last month, which resulted in the deaths of a police officer and three others, puts a spotlight on how building operators can protect occupants in the face of armed assailants. The incident makes clear that access control is a critical factor, but not all access systems are the same, security specialists say.
Prior to the assailant entering the office skyscraper’s lobby and beginning his attack, cameras at 345 Park Avenue flagged the approaching gunman as a potential threat, Reuters reported.
A still frame of closed circuit television footage the outlet obtained, time-stamped just over a minute before police received the first emergency call about the shooting, shows a man holding an assault-style rifle at his side. The photo shows a yellow box around the figure generated by the building’s security system, which analyzes live video feeds for threats requiring instant action. The system was supposed to alert guards at the front security desk, a former federal official told Reuters.
Protecting building occupants in the case of an emergency starts with access control, especially in the case of an active shooter, according to Josh Sullivan, chief operating officer of the ALIVE Active Shooter Survival Training Program, which shares best practices with organizations on responding to threats.
“Access control and the physical security measures in place can prevent a lot of things from happening in the first place,” Sullivan said. “There are multiple ways. No. 1, they have systems out there, like the one that was in place [at 345 Park Avenue] that just didn’t get used properly.”
Software is available that can connect to cameras, identify threats and lock down access controls, doors and other systems, Sullivan said. The software can also notify local authorities or call 911.
“Those things save valuable time,” he said. In some cases, the software automatically provides the security system login to the emergency dispatchers, who can provide it to the first responders, giving them “access to the camera’s live feed, more plans and to where things are in the building.”
The technology is only part of the equation, however, Matthew Dumpert, global leader of enterprise security risk management at financial and risk advisory firm Kroll, told Reuters. “It takes significant resources, alarms to notify people [and] training to recognize it,” he said.
Considering the rate of active threats today, allocating those resources and having a plan is increasingly important for facilities managers, Sullivan says.
The OSHA general duty clause says that employers must take reasonable actions to ensure the safety of employees or guests from recognized hazards that are “likely to cause death or serious physical harm.”
“An active shooter, unfortunately in today’s world, is a common hazard,” Sullivan said. “It’s No. 3 overall in any workplace as the cause of injury or death. In healthcare and education, it’s No. 1.”
Stagnant technologies leave gaps in security
Many organizations use access control technologies that are outdated, improperly configured or insecure, according to Tina D’Agostin, CEO of Alcatraz AI, a company that provides facial authentication hardware and software solutions to enterprise clients.
“When you look at what is deployed today, 90% of it is still badges and proximity cards,” said D’Agostin, noting that the first access card technology was released in 1983, with little innovation since. “Imagine using a TV or phone from the ’80s. That’s essentially what we’re doing in access control. In no other area of life would that be allowed to happen.”
Among their weaknesses, these cards can be easily cloned, she said.
Facility managers might want to look at other technologies, including mobile technologies and biometric-based systems, she said. Each has its pros and cons, she said.
Among their cons, mobile devices are carried, just like an access card, so they can be lost, and using biometrics requires a trade-off between friction and convenience, she said.
Separate from these issues is the problem of tailgating, where unknown actors follow authorized employees or occupants into a space, bypassing access controls.
Tailgating is the No. 1 cause of a security breach, and it’s usually not very elaborate, D’Agostin said. “It’s a courteous human being holding the door open for someone who is unauthorized that goes in to be a bad actor,” she said. “All the other technologies do not protect against that. If you have a technology at the door, and someone holds that door open, the whole system is defeated.”
Going forward, building operators should treat active shooter threats as seriously as they do fire evacuations and other safety matters, Sullivan said.
“If they even touch on [active threat situations] at all, it’s very minimal,” he said. “Most companies out there don’t touch on — or don’t touch enough on — the active threat space. The workplace violence space needs to really [be taken] seriously.
Borderless thinker, story collector, quietly fierce.
What do you like most about your job?
Connecting people to possibilities. It blends everything I’ve studied and lived through, connection, culture, and human behavior.
With a background in clinical psychology, I lean into the why behind choices, but I also love thinking big: What changes access? What drives outcomes? What makes strategy stick? Helping students dream bigger is what I do daily, but assisting institutions to see differently is what I’m growing toward.
Best work trip/Worst work trip?
Best: Nepal. A place where spirituality meets ambition, and every conversation felt like a masterclass in purpose. I met students who challenged assumptions, asked global questions, and reminded me why this work isn’t just recruitment, it’s relationship-building across borders.
Worst: One of those everything-goes-wrong kind of trips – delayed flights, tech glitches, and a schedule that changed by the hour. I remember the panic, but more than that, I remember pivoting fast, staying present, and making it work. It showed me how adaptability and clarity under pressure aren’t just nice-to-haves; They’re the bones that build leaders.
If you could learn a language instantly, which would you pick and why?
Arabic. I was born in Saudi, so it’s always felt like the soundtrack of my early life. Learning it would be more than linguistic. It’d be a way of reconnecting with something I’ve always found myself drawn to.
A close second would be Japanese. With how they’re innovating in education and global engagement, it feels like a language that’s about to take centre stage.
What makes you get up in the morning?
The fact that someone out there is making a life-changing decision, and I might get to play a small part in it. That, and the promise of good coffee.
Champion/cheerleader which we should all follow and why?
Tunde Oyeneyin. Peloton coach turned powerhouse. She speaks about purpose, identity, and growth like she’s been reading your journal. I was never athletic or sporty and exercise never felt like it belonged to me.
But something shifted when I found her. She made movement feel like a celebration, not a punishment. Her energy is magnetic, her story is powerful, and her voice makes you believe you can rewrite your narrative, and when used intentionally, can move people.
Best international ed conference and why
APAIE in India earlier this year. My first global panel! Sitting among leaders I Googled in awe and quietly learn from, now contributing to the conversation at the same table as them was surreal. It was one of those “you’re not in the audience anymore” moments.
Worst conference food/beverage experience
One conference served “fusion” snacks. I tried something that was somewhere between dessert and deep regret. Coffee didn’t salvage it either. It’s fine. Character was built.
Book or podcast recommendation for others in the sector?
The One Thing by Gary Keller. This sector moves fast. There’s always something to do, someone to help, somewhere to be. This book forces you to pause and ask: “What’s the one thing I can do right now that actually makes a difference?” Game changer for anyone juggling a million priorities.
Describe a project or initiative you’re currently working on that excites you.
I’m working on a storytelling series that spotlights international students who’ve carved out unexpected paths. It’s about humanising the data and reminding institutions that behind every stat is a story worth telling. Still in early stages, but it’s one of those ideas that just won’t leave me alone.
CHAPPAQUA, NY, June 25, 2025 — The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression agreed to drop its First Amendment lawsuit against Chappaqua Central School District after the district’s board of education adopted a robust First Amendment regulation that will protect the constitutional free speech rights of its students.
FIRE sued the district in 2024 on behalf of O.J., an LGBTQ+ student suspended for violating the district’s “hate speech” definition in its code of conduct because he used the words “faggot” and “twink” in a rap song recorded in his friend’s home after school. In the song, O.J. rapped the refrain, “faggot, fart, balls.” The song also included another person’s lyrics, which contained violent imagery. After O.J.’s friend uploaded the song to a music-sharing website, the school received three complaints and promptly suspended the student.
“In the Supreme Court’s decision inMahanoy Area School District v. B.L., the Court held that students’ off-campus, nondisruptive speech is protected by the First Amendment,” said FIRE attorney Colin McDonell. “That is true even when the speech receives criticism.”
In communications with the district, O.J.’s father cited Mahanoy and argued the school could not punish his son for his off-campus speech because it did not disrupt the educational environment. When this proved unsuccessful, O.J.’s father reached out to FIRE for assistance. On April 15, 2024, FIRE sued the district on behalf of O.J. and his father in the federal district court for the Southern District of New York.
After commencement of the lawsuit, FIRE and the district worked together to craft a First Amendment regulation that would protect its students’ rights to express themselves both on and off school campus, consistent with and reconciled with Mahanoy and the New York State Dignity for All Students Act and its regulations. The district’s insurer also agreed to pay $70,000 to FIRE, encompassing attorneys’ fees, and the district removed the disciplinary action based on the song from the student’s file.
“With its adoption of a First Amendment regulation, the board of education has affirmed the rights of its students to engage in protected speech on and off campus,” said FIRE Senior Attorney Greg H. Greubel. “We’re pleased that we could work with the board to avoid further litigation and turn this situation into a positive outcome for our client and all students in the district.”
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.
CONTACT:
Karl de Vries, Director of Media Relations, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
The New York Conservatory for Dramatic Arts plans to close at the end of its current academic year, with operations and classes set to end Aug. 31, it announced Tuesday.
The for-profit arts college is currently coordinating with other institutions to help find spots for students who have not completed their programs by then. So far, it has established teach-out agreements with Five Towns College and American Academy of Dramatic Arts, both in New York.
NYCDA trustees decided to close after a “thorough evaluation of our enrollment and financial forecasts,” the two-year college said in an FAQ page. In explaining the closure, it cited national college enrollment trends and demographic projections.
Dive Insight:
The 45-year-old NYCDA said that the decision to close “has not been made lightly, and it comes after exhaustive efforts to explore every possible alternative.”
On the FAQ page about the wind-down, the college noted that “the landscape of higher education has meaningfully changed since the pandemic.” Its own fall enrollment fell by 8.6% to 286 students between the pre-pandemic year of 2019 and 2023, according to federal data.
Founded in 1980 by Joan See, a successful commercial actor, the New York City institution started with a single private acting class.
From there, it was built into a “nationally accredited college that to this day empowers actors to follow their dreams, prove the doubters wrong, and make a living doing what they love,” as the institution described itself in Tuesday’s announcement.
Before the closure decision, NYCDA offered two-year acting programs in theater, musical theater, and film and television, and a two-year program in media production geared toward actors. It also offers shorter-term programs, including certificates. Its alumni include film and television actors, including Miles Teller, Jacob Batalon and Ashleigh Murray.
NYCDA joins a growing list of private arts colleges to fail recently. Last year saw the sudden closure of University of the Arts in Philadelphia along with the Delaware College of Art and Design. Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, meanwhile, announced it would stop offering two- and four-year degrees at the end of the 2024-25 academic year.
Those closures left holes not just in the higher education world of those regions but also in the local arts scenes, where the institutions employed working artists, hosted events and created hubs of artistic activity.
