The Trump administration has begun pressuring colleges by withholding federal funds, looking to revoke their tax-exempt status, and demanding greater accountability from private universities. Citing the rise of anti‑Semitic protests, incidents, and violence toward Jewish students since October 7th, the explosive expansion of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, and the use of racist affirmative action programs in admissions.
Universities and much of the media immediately denounced what they call an unwarranted crackdown on private institutions— (where was the outcry when the Biden Administration targeted Christian colleges?). This defensive posture conveniently ignores how many elite private universities have, for years, operated like self‑perpetuating bureaucracies and advanced a host of left‑wing priorities—only to hide behind “private” status when challenged.
Today’s colleges display a glaring double standard and every red flag of a bloated government agency. Many colleges perfectly illustrate Milton Friedman’s concept of bureaucratic displacement: when an organization loses sight of its founding mission and devotes itself to maintaining and expanding its power.
There are three apparent symptoms of bureaucratic displacement worth exploring as they play out in higher education:
1. Administrative Bloat
2. Mission Drift
3. Process Over Outcomes & Increased Costs Without Increased Value
Administrative Bloat
Administrative bloat occurs when non‑essential staff — coordinators, specialists, vice presidents, and extracurricular departments — expand beyond an institution’s core mission, inflating costs without improving the student’s academic or educational experience. Colleges often channel resources into agendas like DEI initiatives and political programming rather than instruction.
Across U.S. colleges, non‑academic administrative and professional employees more than doubled over the past 25 years, far outpacing growth in enrollment and faculty. At Stanford, administrators and faculty outnumber students, creating a staff‑to‑student ratio above 1:1. Harvard has increased its full‑time administrative headcount by 43% since 2004 — while faculty has grown by only 11%.
This expansion shifts budgets from instruction to bureaucracy, driving tuition increases that justify further hiring in a self‑perpetuating cycle. Administrative layers generate red tape, stifle progress and innovation, and lead to mission creep as administrative and political priorities supplant academic ones.
Mission Drift
Mission drift occurs when colleges shift their focus from teaching and research to pursuing ideological or administrative agendas.
Colleges’ political schemes are outlined in their double standards towards free speech. On the one hand, many colleges are currently outraged by the crackdown of the government towards anti-Semitic protests on campuses — many of which have turned violent and created an environment where Jewish students do not feel safe.
However, campuses are not nearly as quick to speak up when conservative thinkers and visitors are barred from campus or when professors were silenced or fired for stating there are only two biological sexes, male and female. These double standards spotlight that most campuses have a bias and an invested side in the culture war.
Research exposes a pronounced liberal tilt among faculty and administrators:
• Across 40 leading universities, Democrats outnumber Republicans by an average of 11.5 to 1.
• Some interdisciplinary studies have ratios as astounding as 108:0
• Nearly 39% of campuses employ zero registered Republicans on their faculties
Bloated administrative offices that set campus policies mirror these trends, staffing diversity officer and social‑justice roles far more heavily than departments devoted to core disciplines. This ideological homogeneity restricts viewpoint diversity, encourages self‑censorship among dissenting students and faculty, and diverts resources away from instruction and scholarship — undermining the very academic mission colleges claim to uphold. Colleges should not be safe spaces but areas of intellectual sparring among a variety of differing viewpoints.
Process Over Outcomes and Increased Costs Without Increased Value
From 1980 to 2020, tuition and fees at U.S. universities climbed by 169%, yet graduates often find no matching uptick in starting salaries. Student loan debt has become so burdensome that many borrowers resort to bankruptcy. Campuses now offer an overwhelming menu of majors and frivolous courses, but they rarely provide clear career roadmaps. Academic advisors, who should serve as mentors, frequently give inconsistent or misguided recommendations.
Meanwhile, many graduate programs — especially online — have relaxed admissions standards to drive up enrollment and revenue. Students in these programs commonly complain of minimal interaction with faculty and subpar learning experiences. Grade inflation compounds the problem: in the 1960s, A’s made up just 15% of all grades; today, an A is the most awarded grade in college courses.
When institutions focus on generating income rather than delivering substantive learning, students pay more for less — and education loses its value.
Bureaucratic Displacement the Result
The only thing to conclude here is that federal loans create bureaucratic displacement.
Private colleges today bear all the hallmarks of overgrown bureaucracies — administrative bloat, mission drift into left‑wing agendas, and processes that value compliance over student outcomes — yet the universities now rail against accountability brought on by the executive branch.
If these academic establishments want to operate like government bureaucracies, they should be treated as such. It is high time these institutions answer for their excesses.
Still, the root of the crisis lies equally with federal policy. Federal student loans flow almost unchecked: approved without credit checks, via a streamlined application, and with virtually no assessment of repayment ability or field of study. The government makes no distinction between rigorous engineering degrees and or degrees crammed with courses like “The Science of Harry Potter.”
This revolving door of taxpayer dollars underwrites a perpetual administrative payroll. At roughly $3,860 per student in federal loans each semester, hypothetically, a college enrolling 10,000 undergraduates stands to receive about $19.3 million in federal loan disbursements every term — guaranteed revenue that incentivizes bureaucratic expansion rather than academic excellence.
Meanwhile, the federal government benefits from a continuous stream of loan repayments, regardless of whether students graduate or drop out. As a result, neither universities nor the government have a real motive to reform the system; both are entangled in a mutually beneficial and deeply flawed financial arrangement.
President Trump’s move to hold universities accountable represents a promising start. However, durable reform demands overhauling the federal loan apparatus itself. By instating basic credit and repayment screenings, tying loan eligibility to measurable educational outcomes, capping federal support for non‑academic programs, and encouraging private‑sector investment — where companies fund or loan tuition for their employees as a stake in workforce development — we can reimpose genuine market discipline.
These steps could dismantle the bureaucratic displacement that defines higher education and restore colleges to their true purpose: delivering rigorous, student‑centered learning instead of running perpetual administrative and Left-wing political empires.
Matthew Williams is an investigator for pharma and a freelance writer focusing on health, healthcare, pharma reform, and free market solutions. Follow him on X @Back2TheCenter.
Jesus Christ is King
Comments are closed.