Op-Ed
Corinthian Colleges Fined $30 Million
By Charlene Crowell
NNPA Columnist
Financially-troubled Corinthian Colleges, once one of the nation’s largest for-profit colleges, has a new financial hurdle: a $30 million fine.
An April 14 order by the U.S. Department of Education followed its finding 947 documented incidents of misrepresentations on job placement rates made to both current and former students. Enrollment at Corinthian’s California Heald College is banned and will also lose participation in the Title IV federal student aid programs at campuses in Salinas and Stockton. Current students must either be helped to complete their education or continue it elsewhere.
At the heart of the department’s actions, related and continuing litigation and other activism is a basic public policy question: Should students repay billions of dollars in federal student loans for an education that failed to provide what it promised?
Education Secretary Arne Duncan doesn’t think so.
“This should be a wake-up call for consumers across the country about the abuses that can exist within the for-profit college sector,” he said. “We will continue to hold the career college industry accountable and demand reform for the good of students and taxpayers. This is unacceptable, and we are holding them accountable.”
Other Heald College job placement practices that concerned the Department of Education included:
• Failing to disclose that it counted graduates whose employment either began before enrollment at Heald or preceded their graduation as job ‘placement;’
• Counting job placements that were outside of the study’s field of study as an in-field placement; and
• Paying temporary agencies to hire its graduates to work at temporary jobs on its own campuses.
The department’s actions came on the heels of mounting concerns from former students and elected officials sustained over several months.
On April 9, in a joint appeal to Secretary Duncan, nine state attorneys general called for the department to “relieve borrowers of the obligation to repay federal student loans that were incurred as a result of violations of state law by Corinthian Colleges, Inc.” State attorneys general signing the letter represented California, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Washington state.
“Through their predatory practices, these unscrupulous for-profit schools have co-opted a public loan program intended to increase access to higher education and left hundreds of thousands of students in financial ruin. Students and families should not be left to bear the costs,” wrote the state officials.
Days earlier, before the attorneys general’s correspondence, a delegation of indebted former students, known as the Corinthian 100, met with the Department of Education to explain why they were withholding payments of their student loans and further asked for the department’s support. Organized by the Debt Collective, an advocacy group, the students wanted to know why the education officials would allow Corinthian College access to federal student aid while the school was under investigation for fraudulent practices and activities.
In February, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) secured private loan forgiveness of $480 million for current and former Corinthian students enrolled at one of 52 campuses in 17 states. These terms were an important condition to CFPB agreeing to allow the sale of these campuses to Zenith Education, a subsidiary of Educational Credit Management Corporation (ECMC), and long-time federal loan guarantor.
According to CFPB, Corinthian deliberately raised prices on tuition in order to create a “funding gap” beyond federal grants and loans that students were pressed to close with private loans. Corinthian needed the additional private revenue because of a federal law limiting for-profit schools from receiving no more than 90 percent of their income from federal sources.
And in December 2014, 13 U.S. Senators signed a letter to Secretary Duncan that expressed shared concerns about Corinthian students’ federal student loan debts.
“If colleges fail to hold up their end of the bargain – if they break the law in ways that bear on their students’ educational experience or finances – students should not literally be stuck by paying the price,” wrote Senators from California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.
For several years Corinthian Colleges were among the nation’s largest for-profit schools, operating under several brands — WyoTech, Heald College and Everest College. After maximizing its reliance on federal loans and Pell Grants, Corinthian’s private student loans, with higher interest rates than federal ones were used to fill funding gaps.
Corinthian’s private “Genesis” loans, unlike other student loans, required repayment to begin while students were enrolled in classes.
Last fall the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL) released research that found how high-cost, for-profit colleges make millions each year by targeting students of color. Although for-profit colleges actually enroll only 13 percent of all college students, they account for nearly half of all student loan defaults.
“For profit colleges have positioned themselves as a means for traditionally underserved students of color to achieve educational success and thus to increase their ability to earn higher incomes, and build wealth,” states the report. “If these schools do not engender better outcomes for their students and instead merely saddle students with debt, then the access these schools provide could prove to widen existing income and wealth gaps, rather than to narrow them.”
Charlene Crowell is a communications manager with the Center for Responsible Lending. She can be reached at Charlene.crowell@responsiblelending.org.
###
Activism
OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care
One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners
Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”
That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.
That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.
One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.
Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.
The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.
These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.
I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.
About the Author
Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.
Activism
OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination
At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners
In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.
In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.
A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.
At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.
This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.
This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values.
“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.
Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.
“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.
Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.
“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.
As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.
Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.
It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.
When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.
About the Author
Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.
Activism
Oakland Post Endorses Barbara Lee
Barbara Lee will be able to unify the city around Oakland’s critical budget and financial issues, since she will walk into the mayor’s office with the support of a super majority of seven city council members — enabling her to achieve much-needed consensus on moving Oakland into a successful future.

As we end the celebration of Women’s History Month in Oakland, we endorse Barbara Lee, a woman of demonstrated historical significance. In our opinion, she has the best chance of uniting the city and achieving our needs for affordable housing, public safety, and fiscal accountability.
As a former small business owner, Barbara Lee understands how to apply tools needed to revitalize Oakland’s downtown, uptown, and neighborhood businesses.
Barbara Lee will be able to unify the city around Oakland’s critical budget and financial issues, since she will walk into the mayor’s office with the support of a super majority of seven city council members — enabling her to achieve much-needed consensus on moving Oakland into a successful future.
It is notable that many of those who fought politically on both sides of the recent recall election battles have now laid down their weapons and become brothers and sisters in support of Barbara Lee. The Oakland Post is pleased to join them.
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
MLK Bust Quietly Removed from Oval Office Under Trump
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of April 30 – May 6, 2025
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of May 7 – 13, 2025
-
Activism2 weeks ago
After Two Decades, Oakland Unified Will Finally Regain Local Control
-
Activism2 weeks ago
New Oakland Moving Forward
-
Activism2 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of May 14 – 20, 2025
-
Alameda County2 weeks ago
Oakland Begins Month-Long Closure on Largest Homeless Encampment
-
#NNPA BlackPress3 weeks ago
Trump Abruptly Fires First Carla Hayden: The First Black Woman to Serve as Librarian of Congress