I have been to the White House on several occasions. I first went there for a State Dinner in 1965 when Lyndon B. Johnson was President. I was there as a guest on several other occasions. Every time, I was in awe, star-struck. I felt as though I was walking on hallowed ground. I tried to hold onto every minute, wishing I could stop time.

And now a coarse vulgarian lives there, who has horrible taste. He paved over the Rose Garden. He hung gold-sprayed shlock from Walmart all over the Oval Office.

And now he is demolishing the East Wing to replace it with a ballroom for 999 people. The ballroom will be larger than the White House.

Trump doesn’t understand that the White House belongs to the people, not to him.

He said that the ballroom would not interfere with the White House. He lied.

He has no respect for the White House or its history.

This makes me sad. It makes me sick.

He waited until after #NoKings Day to desecrate the People’s House.

Donald Trump is a vandal.

Trump and his administration are determined to impose their rightwing agenda on the nation’s colleges and universities. They have withheld federal funding for scientific and medical research, using that money to demand compliance.

Trump and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, former wrestling entrepreneur, recently rolled out their “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.”

The Compact asked universities to pledge to do the following:

1. When admitting students, institutions must not take such factors as “sex, ethnicity, race, nationality, political views, sexual orientation, religious associations, or proxies for any of the foregoing into account, unless they are institutions “solely or primarily comprised is students of a specific sex or religious denomination.”
   Therefore, no factor such as sex, ethnicity, race, nationality, political views, sexual orientation,
2. Institutions shall have all undergraduate applicants take a widely-used standardized test (i.e. SAT,
   ACT, or CLT) or program-specific measures of accomplishment in the case of music, art, and other
   specialized programs of study. Universities shall publicly report anonymized data for admitted and rejected
   students, including GPA, standardized test score, or other program-specific measures of accomplishments,
   by race, national origin, and sex.
3. To protect a vibrant marketplace of ideas, the signatories agree to foster ideological and political diversity and to “transform or abolish” institutional units that punish, belittle or spark violence against conservative ideas.
4. In hiring faculty and administrators, signatories shall not take into account race, gender, nationality, etc.
5. Women and men must be accorded separate and appropriate facilities, meaning trans people don’t exist.
6. Universities must agree to accept no more than 15% of their students from foreign countries and no more than 5% from any one country. They must also screen them to be sure they are not “anti-American.”

There is much more. Read the text of the 10-page document. It represents a very large degree of government intervention in the affairs of universities. And raises the question: who will police all these requirements?

The administration asked nine institutions to sign on to the Compact. So far, seven of the nine said no. The seven recognized that they were being asked to give up academic freedom and institutional independence in return for a guarantee of future funding.

The administration initially invited nine universities (on or around early October 2025) to accept the Compact:

These are the nine:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 

Brown University 

Dartmouth College 

University of Pennsylvania (Penn) 

University of Southern California (USC)

University of Virginia (UVA) 

University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin) 

University of Arizona (UArizona) 

Vanderbilt University 

MIT was first to say no. Within a few days, the Compact was rejected by Penn, USC, Brown, Dartmouth, UVA, and–most recently– the University of Arizona.

Currently, only the University of Arizona and Vanderbilt are holdouts and are engaging in “dialogue.”

A group of scholars from different political perspectives explained their opposition to the Compact in an article that appeared in The Chronicle of Higher Education.

The article was co-written by Robert P. George, Tom Ginsburg, Robert C. Post, David M. Rabban, Jeannie Suk Gersen, and Keith E. Whittington.

We write as scholars of academic freedom to respond to the proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” We are politically diverse and do not share common views about the wisdom of particular proposals contained in the compact. Nor do we agree on the extent or substance of the reforms needed in American higher education today. We are, however, united in our concern about key features of the proposed compact.

The compact’s demands that universities and colleges eschew foreign students with “anti-American values” and that they impose a politically determined diversity within departments and other institutional units are incompatible with the self-determination that colleges and universities must enjoy if they are to pursue their mission as truth-seeking institutions. So also is the compact’s demand that universities and colleges select their students only on the basis of “objective” and “standardized” criteria. Colleges may of course voluntarily elect exclusively to deploy objective criteria (such as standardized-test scores and high-school or college grade-point averages), but these standards should not be imposed on institutions which, operating within the law, wish to include consideration of nonquantifiable criteria in selecting students.

Furthermore, we believe that certain aspects of the compact violate core principles of academic freedom. Academic freedom comes with obligations and limitations, to be sure; its essence, however, involves the liberty of faculty within the bounds of professional competence to teach and to research as they choose. The architect of America’s public-private research partnership, Vannevar Bush, asserted that “scientific progress” requires “the free play of free intellects, working on subjects of their own choice, in the manner dictated by their curiosity for exploration of the unknown.” Some of us believe that colleges today are failing in important ways to promote independence of mind and protect academic freedom, but we are united in the conviction that an attempt to solve this problem by government intervention, even if in the form of conditions for eligibility for grants, will be counterproductive.…

As recognized for over a century, faculty should be able to engage as individual citizens in extramural speech. Faculty should exercise these rights responsibly and professionally, but when they fail to do so, it is not the role of the government or the university to sanction them. Colleges that censor their faculty will quickly undermine the vibrancy and initiative so vital for teaching and research.

The power to punish extramural speech has been abused against both conservative and liberal speakers in the past. The requirement of the compact that universities and colleges censor students and faculty who voice support for “entities designated by the U.S. government as terrorist organization” imposes overly intrusive regulation of constitutionally protected speech.

Almost all colleges enshrine the basic principles of academic freedom in contractual agreements with faculty. Elements of the compact seek to use financial incentives to pressure colleges to break these contractual agreements. For a university to bend to this pressure and sacrifice the academic freedom of its faculty is to abandon constitutive institutional commitments essential to both education and the pursuit of knowledge.

Peter Greene, the best education blogger ever, writes regularly for Forbes magazine. Hopefully, some of the nation’s business executives are learning about the for-profit entrepreneurs who have entered into the education “industry,”where they are profiting without doing much for students.

Greene recently wrote about the latest setback for the giant of the cybercharter industry. It’s now called Stride, but for many years it was K12 Inc. Top executives are paid millions of dollars. Profit, not learning, is its highest priority. Despite terrible academic results, low graduation rates, complaints about inflated enrollments, there are always school districts happy to host the cybercharter industry because the district gets a cut of the profits.

Greene writes:

Stride, a giant in the cyber charter school industry, was accused by a New Mexico school district of violating rules and regulations. Now a lawsuit alleges that Stride responded by mounting a coordinated attack on the district and its superintendent. 

In 2020, Gallup-McKinley County Schools contracted with Stride (formerly known as K12 Inc) to operate its New Mexico Destinations Career Academy. But the district alleges that the for-profit organization repeatedly cut corners, violated staffing rules, and inflated enrollment numbers. In May 2025, the school board voted to end the contract. 

“Our students deserve better,” said School Board President Christopher Mortensen in a press release.“This action is not sudden; it is the result of months of effort to address persistent issues with the contractor. We are taking this step to protect our students, uphold academic standards, and meet our obligations under state and federal law.”

Within months, the district had filed a complaint against Stride, charging them with fraud, unfair trade practices, civil conspiracy, and seven other counts. That lawsuit outlines the issues between Stride and the district. 

According to the complaint, Stride had continuing issues with meeting requirements for student-teacher ratios, having been notified as early as September 2023 that it was out of compliance. Special education teachers were over their permitted caseloads, and IEP students were not receiving their due process. Further, Stride failed to employ certified teachers, complete background checks, or provide state-mandated occupational and professional trainings to their staff. 

The district also alleges that Stride “retained nonexistent students on its rolls” and took school district funds for educating these ghost students. Stride failed to provide timely required communication with the district. Stride’s graduation rate, says the district, was “horrific,” with a graduation rate of 27.67% in 2024.

The district also claims that through it all, Stride has “ignored compliance requirements” and failed to produce a remediation plan. 

According to the suit filed by the district, a management representative of Stride came forward in May as a whistleblower, declaring that the increases in student-teacher ratios was “intentional… in order to increase profit margins.” The whistleblower reported that he made multiple attempts to inform upper management that Stride was out of compliance with state law, and asked for authority to hire the roughly 80 teachers needed. The Vice President of Finance, says the whistleblower, refused to authorize those hires. Instead, in a later meeting, the whistleblower was allegedly told that his “projected profit margin was too low.” He was directed to cut staff for the next year to meet projected profit margin.”

According to the whistleblower, Stride’s plans to deal with their troubles were not focused on meeting their obligations to the district. 

Instead, the whistleblower says, at an April meeting Stride’s Senior Vice President of School Development “Peter Stewart said the company should attack first publicly and Stride Inc. should develop a strategy for that” and that Stride CEO “James Rhyu said [to the group] that the Superintendent [for the School District] was in over his skis on this issue.” 

Alleges the district’s suit, ”Stride’s management, including the individual Defendants, engaged in and agreed to a civil conspiracy to cover up its misconduct and illegal activities acting, by and through its employees, agents and attorneys, in planning and engaging in a systemic public attack on the School District and its Superintendent of Schools to distract from its illegal activities and its breach of the contract with the Board of Education.”

And counter-attack they did. On April 22, the district sent Stride a letter charging it had “materially breached” its contract. On April 28, the company filed an ethics complaint against GMCS Superintendent Michael Hyatt, alleging that he had tried to leverage Stride’s contract with the district in order to secure a “lucrative position” with Stride. Hyatt had applied for a management position with Stride in 2024; the company declined to hire him.

The list of complaints by the district against Stride is long, but the theme is simple enough. 

Defendant Stride purposely and willfully disregarded the contractual requirements and the statutory and regulatory requirements in order to defraud the School District to increase its profits…

Defendant Stride, while obligated to provide a certain quality of education to students, disregarded its legal obligations with the sole intent to profit on the education of students that it was supposed to educate, and that profit was obtained illegally through the intentional 27 violations of State law, incomplete and false reporting of student data, withholding technical support and operating and manipulating student counts to include students who had been dropped, withdrawn or were excessively absent.

Asked for comment on the suit, a Stride representative directed me to the company’s suit-related web site which argues that the company has been working on an improvement plan, that their student-to-staff ratios are better than those reported by the district, and that “explosive growth” of NMDCA makes it hard to stay caught up with staffing. A reply to the district’s Aprill 22 letter contests virtually every point that the district has made about Stride’s performance. 

Since being cut loose from GMCS, Stride has re-opened NMDCA as a cyber charter school partnered with Charna Valley Independent Schools and Santa Rosa Consolidated Schools; a fact sheet from Stride says 3,000 students are enrolled, including 2,300 returning families. Those families, they say, are largely satisfied with the school. They also point out that many students enter the school short of credits, and that the majority of students are closing that gap. The Stride representative also sent a fact sheet alleging that GMCS is facing other legal problems. 

But Stride is no stranger to legal issues. It was founded in 2000 as K12 Inc by Ron Packard, former banker and Mckinsey consultant, and quickly became the leading national company for cyber schooling. One of its first big investors was Michal Milken. That investment came a decade after he pled guilty to six felonies in the “biggest fraud case in the securities industry” ending his reign as the “junk bond king.” Besides Milliken, Stride investors have included brothers Lowell and Larry Ellison, and BlackRock, founded by Larry Fink, whose brother Steve sits on the Stride Board of Directors.

In 2011, the New York Times detailed how K12’s schools were failing miserably, but still making investors and officers a ton of money. Former teachers wrote tell-alls about their experiences. In 2012. Florida caught K12 using fake teachers. The NCAA put K12 schools on the list of cyber schools that were disqualified from sports eligibility. In 2014, Packard turned out to be one of the highest paid public workers in the country, “despite the fact that only 28% of K12 schools met state standards in 2011-2012.”

In 2013 K12 settled a class action lawsuit in Virginia for $6.75 million after stockholders accused the company of misleading them about “the company’s business practices and academic performance.” In 2014, Middlebury College faculty voted to end a partnership with K12 saying the company’s business practices “are at odds with the integrity, reputation and educational mission of the college.”

In 2016 K12 got in yet another round of trouble in California for lying about student enrollment, resulting in a $165 million settlement with then Attorney General Kamala Harris. K12 was repeatedly dropped in some states and cities for poor performance.

In 2020, they landed a big contract in Miami-Dade county (after a big lucrative contribution to an organization run by the superintendent); subsequently Wired magazine wrote a story about their “epic series of tech errors.” K12 successfully defended itself from a lawsuit in Virginia based on charges they had greatly overstated their technological capabilities by arguing that such claims were simply advertising “puffery.”

The district is seeking compensatory and punitive damages from Stride. Four Stride executives are named in the suit in addition to Stride Inc itself. The court will decide who’s blowing smoke here. In the meantime, school districts continue to learn about the price of teaming up with aggressively for-profit partners.