At my university and at many others across the U.S., students, faculty, and staff are deeply concerned about Trump’s plans to shut down the Department of Education (DOE).
During the first few weeks of his second term, Trump signaled his intention to eliminate the DOE, which experts dismissed as unconstitutional and would harm a large part of his political base. Why? Such a decision requires congressional approval, thus making it extend beyond executive authority. At the time, many assumed this was an empty threat.
Recent developments suggest otherwise. Over the past two months, Trump has, with the assistance of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), begun dismantling key programs of many federal agencies. USAID has been shut down, mass layoffs have been forced at the DOE, and budget cuts are rippling through higher education.
The Cancelling of federal grants and contracts
In March, Trump canceled all federal grants to Columbia University, and. just last week, the University of Pennsylvania faced similar cuts. These grants support scholarship, fund faculty salaries and student stipends, and cover overhead costs, including discretionary expenditures. Although Ivy League institutions receive significant support from research grants and endowments, most American universities do not rely so heavily on such funding.
Most institutions of higher education, particularly public universities and community colleges, depend on a mix of revenue sources, especially tuition and fees, to pay their operating costs.
This is not the first time American college and university employees have faced cuts. Many state legislatures that fund educational institutions have faced cuts and declining enrollments since the COVID-19 pandemic have forced public and private colleges and universities to rethink and change their academic offerings and workforce.
The closure of the DOE would have profound consequences beyond research funding. Federal grants, student loans, and financial aid programs—lifelines for millions of students—are all at risk. Universities, community colleges, and vocational schools relying on DOE funding could face severe financial shortfalls, leading to program cuts, faculty, administrative, and staff layoffs or firings, and institutional closures.
This isn’t just an issue for students, faculty, and staff—it affects the global standing of American higher education. The United States has long been a destination for international students whose tuition helps sustain university budgets. If federal support continues to erode and institutions struggle to remain competitive, prospective students (and their families that support them) may look elsewhere—to Anglo-American democracy or Europe—where tuition is often more affordable. The long-term impact could be a decline in revenue and academic prestige for American universities.
What Can Be Done?
As overused as the phrase may be, this is a teaching moment. The decisions made by elected officials have real-world consequences.
For people who are concerned about the future of higher education in the United States, the following steps are clear:
Stay informed about federal education policy changes and their implications.
Engage in advocacy and activism by reaching out to elected representatives, participating in discussions, and making your voice heard.
Support institutions that defend higher education through donations, public support, and grassroots efforts.
Vote—not just in presidential elections, but in congressional and local elections that determine funding and policy decisions.
Handwringing and feeling powerless in the face of the capriciousness of powerful interests does no good. It only contributes to feelings of powerlessness and depression. Knowing you have more agency than you think is more important.
Photo
No Future
Artist: Banksy
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2025-03-22-at-11.45.08 PM.png10201536Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2025-03-23 12:30:452025-03-23 12:31:17My Students Are Afraid, and They Have Good Reason
Three decades ago one of my first books, Controlling State Crime (1995) was published by Garland. This edited volume was, in part, a response to Gregg Barak’s Crimes of the Capitalist State (1991), an edited collection that brought together critical research on state crime. While Barak and his contributors effectively framed key debates on the topic, I felt their analysis did not pay sufficient attention to the challenge of control. Although identifying examples and the causes of state crime is important, I argued that the more pressing issue was how to deter, prevent, or minimize it. This concern further led me to edit a follow-up book, Varieties of State Crime and Its Control, (Criminal Justice Press, 2000) which examined concrete strategies for controlling state crime in advanced industrialized democracies.
The Accessibility Barrier in Academic Publishing
When Controlling State Crime was first released, it retailed for about $80.00, making it largely inaccessible to individual scholars and students. Despite numerous positive reviews, the high cost likely limited its readership. Recognizing this drawback, the second edition of the book was published by Transaction Publishers in 2000 as a paperback, with a new introduction, at a more affordable price. The experience reinforced a lesson some academic authors learn over time: accessibility and affordability are often just as critical as content in determining a book’s impact.
Control vs. Resistance: A Diverging Focus
Over the past few decades, a handful of criminologists have examined resistance to state crime.Although resistance plays an essential role in challenging state crime, it does not, in itself, constitute an effective control mechanism. Resistance often emerges in reaction to state crime, but meaningful control requires institutional mechanisms, enforcement strategies, and accountability measures that prevent these crimes from occurring in the first place. In short, resistance may disrupt state crime but does not ensure its deterrence or systemic reduction.
Revisiting the Core Question: How Do We Control State Crime and Crimes of the Powerful?
After stepping away from this line of scholarship for some time, I re-engaged when Gregg Barak edited The Routledge Handbook of the Crimes of the Powerful (2015). Moving the debate from state crimes to crimes of the powerful has been a significant conceptual development and reaffirmed my belief that the central challenge remains: How do we best control powerful actors? While academic perspectives on this issue have evolved, I continue to see control—not just resistance—as the more urgent issue to be understood and implemented.
Moving forward, we need to critically examine the effectiveness of existing informal and legal mechanisms, policy interventions, and enforcement structures. Have international legal frameworks such as the International Criminal Court deterred state crime? How has digital surveillance affected state accountability? What role do whistleblowers and the news media play in exposing and preventing state crime? These are the questions that continue to demand attention.
As we mark the 30th anniversary of Controlling State Crime, I am reminded that while our understanding of state crime (and crimes of the powerful) has deepened, the fundamental challenge remains the same: ensuring that state actors are held accountable and that control mechanisms are effective and enduring.
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_7712-scaled.jpg24282560Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2025-03-16 04:28:582025-03-21 17:33:12Reflections on the 30th Anniversary of CONTROLLING STATE CRIME
In the coming weeks, college students will begin writing their dreaded end-of-semester essays.
But the landscape has changed. The rise of free, publicly available Artificial Intelligence (AI) writing tools like ChatGPT and ClaudeAI has transformed how many students do their work.
Since these tools became widely accessible, reliance on them has skyrocketed, leaving educational institutions scrambling to determine the best response.
Should AI use be banned, permitted, or even encouraged? If we prohibit it, how do we realistically prevent students from using it? Some faculty murmur about AI detection tools, while others suggest returning to timed, in-class exams. But if we accept AI as part of the research and writing process, how do we ensure students use it as a tool rather than a crutch?
Regardless of institutional policy and practice, individual instructors must grapple with this reality: students are already using AI. The question is how we guide them to use it wisely.
Mediocrity vs. Excellence
In these crazy fast-paced times, I’m leaning hard on what Seth Godin has to say. AI will inevitably shape or replace many jobs in the coming years, but much of what it produces is generic and uninspired. If all you want is mediocrity, AI can deliver it. I agree.
That’s why I tell my students: if you’re aiming for a C, go ahead—type the assignment prompt into ChatGPT, copy the response, and submit it. You won’t learn much, but you might scrape by.
But here’s the catch: if you consistently settle for mediocrity, you’ll struggle to stand out in the crowded job market. Few employers hire people who regurgitate information.
They value individuals who think critically, synthesize ideas, and communicate with originality. If you let AI do all the work for you, you’re setting yourself up for failure, and training yourself to be replaceable.
A Smarter Approach to AI
I use AI every day. It’s faster and sometimes more effective than the Google searches I used to rely on. But I also recognize its limits. If I ask ChatGPT for the best Japanese restaurant in a neighborhood, and I have the time, that’s just a starting point—I still check Yelp, critically read reviews, and articles written by credible sources, and ultimately decide to try the establishment myself.
Students should use AI not as a substitute for thinking, but as a tool for generating and refining ideas. AI can help create outlines, rephrase awkward sentences, or summarize complex concepts. But the real work—analyzing, questioning, and creating—still has to come from them.
Teaching Thoughtful AI Use
As educators, we’re navigating uncharted territory. Mistakes will be made. But our primary role isn’t to enforce rules—it’s to teach students how to use new technologies that will assist them responsibly and critically. Instead of asking whether AI should be banned or embraced, we should be asking: how do we cultivate excellence in an AI-driven world? Because in the end, it’s not about whether students use AI—it’s about how they use it.
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_7665.jpg7231642Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2025-03-09 04:35:152025-03-09 04:35:15AI and the Dreaded College Essay
My Students Are Afraid, and They Have Good Reason
/by Jeffrey Ian RossAt my university and at many others across the U.S., students, faculty, and staff are deeply concerned about Trump’s plans to shut down the Department of Education (DOE).
During the first few weeks of his second term, Trump signaled his intention to eliminate the DOE, which experts dismissed as unconstitutional and would harm a large part of his political base. Why? Such a decision requires congressional approval, thus making it extend beyond executive authority. At the time, many assumed this was an empty threat.
Recent developments suggest otherwise. Over the past two months, Trump has, with the assistance of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), begun dismantling key programs of many federal agencies. USAID has been shut down, mass layoffs have been forced at the DOE, and budget cuts are rippling through higher education.
The Cancelling of federal grants and contracts
In March, Trump canceled all federal grants to Columbia University, and. just last week, the University of Pennsylvania faced similar cuts. These grants support scholarship, fund faculty salaries and student stipends, and cover overhead costs, including discretionary expenditures. Although Ivy League institutions receive significant support from research grants and endowments, most American universities do not rely so heavily on such funding.
Most institutions of higher education, particularly public universities and community colleges, depend on a mix of revenue sources, especially tuition and fees, to pay their operating costs.
This is not the first time American college and university employees have faced cuts. Many state legislatures that fund educational institutions have faced cuts and declining enrollments since the COVID-19 pandemic have forced public and private colleges and universities to rethink and change their academic offerings and workforce.
The closure of the DOE would have profound consequences beyond research funding. Federal grants, student loans, and financial aid programs—lifelines for millions of students—are all at risk. Universities, community colleges, and vocational schools relying on DOE funding could face severe financial shortfalls, leading to program cuts, faculty, administrative, and staff layoffs or firings, and institutional closures.
This isn’t just an issue for students, faculty, and staff—it affects the global standing of American higher education. The United States has long been a destination for international students whose tuition helps sustain university budgets. If federal support continues to erode and institutions struggle to remain competitive, prospective students (and their families that support them) may look elsewhere—to Anglo-American democracy or Europe—where tuition is often more affordable. The long-term impact could be a decline in revenue and academic prestige for American universities.
What Can Be Done?
As overused as the phrase may be, this is a teaching moment. The decisions made by elected officials have real-world consequences.
For people who are concerned about the future of higher education in the United States, the following steps are clear:
Handwringing and feeling powerless in the face of the capriciousness of powerful interests does no good. It only contributes to feelings of powerlessness and depression. Knowing you have more agency than you think is more important.
Photo
No Future
Artist: Banksy
Reflections on the 30th Anniversary of CONTROLLING STATE CRIME
/by Jeffrey Ian RossThree decades ago one of my first books, Controlling State Crime (1995) was published by Garland. This edited volume was, in part, a response to Gregg Barak’s Crimes of the Capitalist State (1991), an edited collection that brought together critical research on state crime. While Barak and his contributors effectively framed key debates on the topic, I felt their analysis did not pay sufficient attention to the challenge of control. Although identifying examples and the causes of state crime is important, I argued that the more pressing issue was how to deter, prevent, or minimize it. This concern further led me to edit a follow-up book, Varieties of State Crime and Its Control, (Criminal Justice Press, 2000) which examined concrete strategies for controlling state crime in advanced industrialized democracies.
The Accessibility Barrier in Academic Publishing
When Controlling State Crime was first released, it retailed for about $80.00, making it largely inaccessible to individual scholars and students. Despite numerous positive reviews, the high cost likely limited its readership. Recognizing this drawback, the second edition of the book was published by Transaction Publishers in 2000 as a paperback, with a new introduction, at a more affordable price. The experience reinforced a lesson some academic authors learn over time: accessibility and affordability are often just as critical as content in determining a book’s impact.
Control vs. Resistance: A Diverging Focus
Over the past few decades, a handful of criminologists have examined resistance to state crime. Although resistance plays an essential role in challenging state crime, it does not, in itself, constitute an effective control mechanism. Resistance often emerges in reaction to state crime, but meaningful control requires institutional mechanisms, enforcement strategies, and accountability measures that prevent these crimes from occurring in the first place. In short, resistance may disrupt state crime but does not ensure its deterrence or systemic reduction.
Revisiting the Core Question: How Do We Control State Crime and Crimes of the Powerful?
After stepping away from this line of scholarship for some time, I re-engaged when Gregg Barak edited The Routledge Handbook of the Crimes of the Powerful (2015). Moving the debate from state crimes to crimes of the powerful has been a significant conceptual development and reaffirmed my belief that the central challenge remains: How do we best control powerful actors? While academic perspectives on this issue have evolved, I continue to see control—not just resistance—as the more urgent issue to be understood and implemented.
Moving forward, we need to critically examine the effectiveness of existing informal and legal mechanisms, policy interventions, and enforcement structures. Have international legal frameworks such as the International Criminal Court deterred state crime? How has digital surveillance affected state accountability? What role do whistleblowers and the news media play in exposing and preventing state crime? These are the questions that continue to demand attention.
As we mark the 30th anniversary of Controlling State Crime, I am reminded that while our understanding of state crime (and crimes of the powerful) has deepened, the fundamental challenge remains the same: ensuring that state actors are held accountable and that control mechanisms are effective and enduring.
AI and the Dreaded College Essay
/by Jeffrey Ian RossIn the coming weeks, college students will begin writing their dreaded end-of-semester essays.
But the landscape has changed. The rise of free, publicly available Artificial Intelligence (AI) writing tools like ChatGPT and ClaudeAI has transformed how many students do their work.
Since these tools became widely accessible, reliance on them has skyrocketed, leaving educational institutions scrambling to determine the best response.
Should AI use be banned, permitted, or even encouraged? If we prohibit it, how do we realistically prevent students from using it? Some faculty murmur about AI detection tools, while others suggest returning to timed, in-class exams. But if we accept AI as part of the research and writing process, how do we ensure students use it as a tool rather than a crutch?
Regardless of institutional policy and practice, individual instructors must grapple with this reality: students are already using AI. The question is how we guide them to use it wisely.
Mediocrity vs. Excellence
In these crazy fast-paced times, I’m leaning hard on what Seth Godin has to say. AI will inevitably shape or replace many jobs in the coming years, but much of what it produces is generic and uninspired. If all you want is mediocrity, AI can deliver it. I agree.
That’s why I tell my students: if you’re aiming for a C, go ahead—type the assignment prompt into ChatGPT, copy the response, and submit it. You won’t learn much, but you might scrape by.
But here’s the catch: if you consistently settle for mediocrity, you’ll struggle to stand out in the crowded job market. Few employers hire people who regurgitate information.
They value individuals who think critically, synthesize ideas, and communicate with originality. If you let AI do all the work for you, you’re setting yourself up for failure, and training yourself to be replaceable.
A Smarter Approach to AI
I use AI every day. It’s faster and sometimes more effective than the Google searches I used to rely on. But I also recognize its limits. If I ask ChatGPT for the best Japanese restaurant in a neighborhood, and I have the time, that’s just a starting point—I still check Yelp, critically read reviews, and articles written by credible sources, and ultimately decide to try the establishment myself.
Students should use AI not as a substitute for thinking, but as a tool for generating and refining ideas. AI can help create outlines, rephrase awkward sentences, or summarize complex concepts. But the real work—analyzing, questioning, and creating—still has to come from them.
Teaching Thoughtful AI Use
As educators, we’re navigating uncharted territory. Mistakes will be made. But our primary role isn’t to enforce rules—it’s to teach students how to use new technologies that will assist them responsibly and critically. Instead of asking whether AI should be banned or embraced, we should be asking: how do we cultivate excellence in an AI-driven world? Because in the end, it’s not about whether students use AI—it’s about how they use it.