The Trump administration’s efforts to reform higher education have been met with increasing resistance from the higher education establishment. Indeed, arguably the most prestigious university of all—Harvard—sued the Trump administration in late-April for freezing over $2 billion in federal research funding because Harvard refused to comply with a list of conditions for the continued receipt of federal monies. Harvard sued the Trump administration again in late May over what Harvard avers is an “unlawful and unwarranted” foreign student ban. If that weren’t contentious enough, a few days before Harvard filed the April lawsuit, hundreds of college and university presidents, including Harvard’s, signed a group letter condemning what they contend is the “unprecedented government overreach and political interference” that higher ed is facing under the Trump administration. Clearly, American higher education is at a crossroads.

Importantly, a growing chorus of scholars, former college presidents, economists, and legal experts is sounding the alarm, but not in a fashion that the higher ed establishment wants to hear. Four recent books, each from different corners of the intellectual and policy spectrum, converge on a shared conclusion. Arthur Levine and Scott Van Pelt’s The Great Upheaval, Brian Rosenberg’s Whatever It Is, I’m Against It, Richard Vedder’s Let Colleges Fail, and Ilya Shapiro’s Lawless offer damning indictments of the current state of American higher education. Despite their different focal points—digital disruption, administrative inertia, fiscal unsustainability, ideological orthodoxy—their message is the same: higher ed is in crisis, and incremental reform will not be enough.

Levine and Van Pelt compare the present moment to the Industrial Revolution. Colleges and universities, they argue, are facing a “Great Upheaval” as digital learning, shifting student demographics, and changing employer demands render the traditional model obsolete. Rosenberg critiques the sector’s paralysis—elite schools tinker around the edges while regional and small private colleges hemorrhage relevance, students, and money.

Vedder is more direct: Many of these institutions shouldn’t be saved. Their value proposition—skyrocketing tuition in exchange for middling outcomes—is no longer viable. And Shapiro’s Lawless frames the decay as not just financial or operational, but legal and cultural: colleges and universities have abandoned the principles of due process, viewpoint diversity, and open inquiry, and have instead become leftist echo chambers increasingly at odds with their civic mission.

Each author targets the economic dysfunctions plaguing the higher education sector. Tuition has soared even as the return on investment for many degrees has plummeted. Administrative bloat and lavish capital spending on non-academic amenities have widened the disconnect between costs and outcomes. Meanwhile, online platforms and nontraditional providers are undercutting traditional colleges and universities with more flexible, affordable, and often more relevant credentials.

[RELATED: Some of These Institutions Need to Die. But They Won’t.]

The old model—where students pay top dollar for a four-year residential experience with a loose connection to career readiness—is no longer sustainable. Yet too many institutions continue to act as though nothing has changed.

Beyond the balance sheet, the cultural and ideological drift within higher education is accelerating the crisis of legitimacy. Shapiro’s case is the starkest: he argues that many colleges and universities have traded intellectual pluralism for conformity and political advocacy, selectively applying rules and punishing dissent. Vedder and Rosenberg share this concern, warning that the campus culture wars are not only stifling free expression but also eroding public trust.

Students and parents are noticing. Fewer believe that college is the only path to a meaningful career—or a meaningful life. Many now see higher education as overpriced, hyper-politicized, and increasingly out of touch with the world young people are preparing to enter.

There is little hope among these authors that the system can fix itself from within because of the bubble in which the key players—administrators and faculty—live. Vedder calls for creative destruction: let the unsustainable colleges and universities go under. Rosenberg urges bolder leadership willing to challenge sacred cows. Levine and Van Pelt envision a more stratified, dynamic system in which elite colleges and universities coexist with specialized institutions and fast, job-focused providers. Shapiro calls for legal reforms to enforce fairness and restore the core academic values of free inquiry and open debate.

The common thread? Disruption is inevitable. The only question is whether higher ed will evolve by design—or implode by default.

It may seem harsh, even callous, to suggest that some colleges and universities should be allowed to shutter. But not every institution deserves to be rescued. We don’t preserve outdated businesses just for nostalgia’s sake, and we shouldn’t do so for outdated education models either. The goal isn’t to burn it all down—it’s to clear the way for better, more accountable, more relevant forms of higher learning.

If the leaders of American higher education won’t change course, perhaps the market and a growing number of skeptical parents and students will do it for them. In the meantime, the Trump administration is aggressively pursuing tighter oversight of funding and restrictions on international student visas—moves that will likely accelerate the reckoning for underperforming colleges and universities already struggling to justify their existence.

Image: “Harvard College” Jacob Rus by Wikimedia Commons