As antisemitism hearings on college campuses ignited late last year, US representatives Elise Stefanik and Virginia Foxx seized the spotlight, relentlessly attacking Harvard, Columbia and other top universities, portraying them as unsafe and incompetent.
“We must DEFUND the rot in America’s higher education,” Stefanik insisted in December, while co-authoring a bill that would withdraw federal funding from universities that do not participate in plans to curb campus protests. Foxx made similar calls.
A little-considered group of Stefanik and Foxx political allies and donors quietly benefited: the “for-profit” college industry.
For-profit schools, such as Keiser University, have drawn intense congressional and administrative scrutiny for predatory practices that frequently leave students with worthless degrees while enriching shareholders in recent decades. The industry is composed of schools that either are for-profit and have shareholders, or are formerly for-profit schools that became non-profits to evade regulations, but which still maintain relationships with for-profit entities.
Observers say Foxx and Stefanik are the industry’s strongest congressional supporters, frequently “doing their bidding” by pushing controversial legislation and shielding for-profit schools that fail students from accountability, all while pulling in campaign donations.
A Guardian analysis of Federal Election Commission fillings and Open Secrets data finds Stefanik and Foxx have received over $300,000 from the industry, including lobbying groups and those associated with for-profit schools, since 2019. Foxx, the chair of the House education and labor committee, is the largest recipient of for-profit education money in Congress, having received about $270,000.
The industry’s primary competition is, in fact, the “elite” schools Stefanik and Foxx lambasted. Though observers say the antisemitism hearings were not ordered by the for-profit industry, the representatives used the opportunity to launch attacks to benefit their allies and donors.
During the hearings, Foxx, citing an alleged “all-time low” in Americans’ view of higher education that she partly linked to antisemitism, proposed a series of major reforms to the Higher Education Act, which aims to provide access to higher education and provide resources for schools. Both Foxx and Stefanik have also taken aim at funding, student loans, courses on racism and other measures on the conservative higher ed wishlist.
“The quest to get at antisemitism on college campuses – Republicans have weaponized that effort and they saw it as a perfect opportunity to capitalize and attack higher ed,” said Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director for with the Student Borrower Protection Center, which has fought Stefanik-authored legislation this congressional term.
In a statement, a Stefanik spokesperson said the attacks on “elite” schools were about protecting Jewish students, and “any suggestion of ulterior motives is completely false and pro-terrorist antisemitic propaganda”.
A Foxx spokesperson said: “Politics has absolutely nothing to do with it – this is about right versus wrong.”
“If these formerly ‘elite’ universities want to get out of the spotlight, it’s on them to deal with the chaos and racism that’s consumed their campuses,” she said.
But many observers view Foxx and Stefanik’s allegations of antisemitism as part of the broader culture war that pits the generally GOP-backed for-profit industry against public or private “elite” universities that Republicans view as liberal bastions.
The framing is “not so much for-profit against non-profit but ‘elite’ and ‘non-elite’,” said Kevin Kinser, a higher education scholar at Pennsylvania State University. “The goal is saying the elites are trying to control you and doing things that are against your interest, whether that is antisemitism over the Israel-Gaza war, or the price of admission.”
David Halperin, an attorney with Republic Report, a higher education watchdog group, said he suspects Foxx’s involvement in antisemitism hearings and for-profit issues owes to her education committee position.
“I personally would guess that it is a relatively separate issue, and that they’re beating up on schools that had campus protests as a way to drum up rightwing and rightwing Jewish support for Republican politics,” he said. “She thinks she’s attacking the liberal elites who dominate the most prestigious colleges and universities, so she thinks she’s scoring political points.”
The for-profit college industry is Foxx’s third largest donor sector this cycle, having given $72,000. That does not include money that has come from non-profits. Foxx also saw a small spike in for-profit donations in the months after the December antisemitism hearings, bringing in as much in the first quarter of 2024 as she did in all of 2023.
Stefanik’s fundraising boomed during that time, but only a small amount came from the for-profit industry. She was still among the largest recipients last cycle, taking in about $21,000.
Both receive comparable sums or more from pro-Israel donors.
Stefanik and Foxx battling on behalf of the for-profit college industry while taking in its money is “disgusting”, said Mark Takano, a Democratic congressman from California and former public school educator who has stood opposite the representatives on a range of education issues and legislation.
“What they really care about is unregulated ways for education funds to be used by for-profit entities that have shareholders or investors,” he said. “They care about the investor return, because those very same corporations’ executives – that’s who fills their campaign coffers.”
Deceptive practices to gain non-profit status
Two cases illustrate the lengths that Stefanik and Foxx will go to for the for-profit college industry.
As scrutiny on the for-profit college industry intensified during the Barack Obama years, some schools’ owners cooked up a scheme: establish a non-profit university and sell the for-profit college to the non-profit at an inflated valuation. That would allow the for-profit entity to continue making money as debt was paid down.
The non-profits also often entered into contracts with the former for-profit schools, providing the latter with another revenue stream. Non-profits can collect up to 90% of their income from taxpayers while facing less regulatory scrutiny.
The moves drew accusations of fraud and led to investigations, but Foxx has consistently “gone to bat” to protect the non-profits, Halperin said.
The schools “engage in deceptive practices that ruin the lives of single mothers, veterans and other people trying to improve their lives through education, but who end up with no degrees or worthless degrees and a huge amount of debt”, Halperin added.
Among the schools that converted to non-profit status is Keiser University. Its chancellor is Arthur Keiser, a historically prolific higher ed donor. He and a family member gave $5,000 to Foxx this session, and another $5,000 to a Pac that gives to her.
Just after attending a 2021 Keiser fundraiser, Foxx defended Keiser and the conversions when the education committee opened an investigation, claiming the committee lacked jurisdiction, scoffing at the seriousness of the alleged fraud, and claiming Democrats were “chasing phantoms” while pursuing a “socialist” agenda.
Foxx has “kneecapped” investigations into Keiser and other non-profits, Halperin said, and “consistently opposes accountability measures that would make for-profit schools behave in a way that benefits students rather than hurt them”.
Meanwhile, this year, Stefanik pushed legislation that would have allowed for-profit schools to take Pell grant funding from students for workforce training programs as short as eight weeks. Unlike student loans, the federal government does not track the success of students who receive Pell grants, and programs shorter than 15 weeks have been found to often have no value for students.
The legislation also would have required “elite” universities to pay off forgiven student loan debt.
Amid “intense opposition”, it was defeated by a broad coalition of opponents, Canchola Bañez said, so Stefanik tried to push it through with a little-used legislative maneuver that circumvented the House rules committee, which failed. She next tried to attach it to the National Defense Authorization Act, an unusual move that also failed.
Foxx and Stefanik “put themselves into pretzels to try to get this across the finish line”, Canchola Bañez said.
“It shows that their willingness to do bidding for for-profit colleges knows no end,” she added.
