SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Even before the pandemic, the exorbitant cost of higher education was holding our country back. (Photo: Shutterstock)
After graduating from college last year, Hayat Rahmeto moved back in with her parents and planned to work two jobs to save money for law school. Then the pandemic hit. She lost one job, with Delta Airlines, and the prospects for finding another were bleak.
Fortunately, with her parents providing rent-free housing, Rahmeto realized she could afford to attend her local community college in Omaha, Nebraska, where she's now working on a paralegal certificate program.
It will cost Rahmeto about $6,000. "This is the cheapest, most cost effective way to find out if law school is what I really want to do with my life," Rahmeto told me.
Youth unemployment is sky-high, reaching over 20 percent for people aged 16 to 24 this June. Like Rahmeto, many other recent graduates may decide to continue their education instead of entering the job market.
With few jobs available under the current crisis, it's even more important to eliminate the financial barriers to continuing education.
But not all will have access to rent-free housing or a spare $6,000 for community college--nevermind the skyrocketing cost of traditional universities.
According to a 2018 study from the Levy Institute, the average cost of college tuition more than doubled as a share of median household income between 1990 and 2014. Including room and board, the average cost of college is more than a third of a typical household's earnings.
This helps explain today's aggregate student loan debt of $1.6 trillion.
These high costs are especially problematic for poor communities and people of color like Rahmeto, who make up a far larger share of heavily indebted borrowers than their share of the student population.
With few jobs available under the current crisis, it's even more important to eliminate the financial barriers to continuing education.
Senator Bernie Sanders has proposed a College for All plan that would eliminate tuition and fees at public four-year colleges, universities, and community colleges. Additionally, it would cancel student debt for 45 million Americans within six months and ensure low-income students can attend college debt-free.
Free college proposals have received support from a growing number of organizations, including the Poor People's Campaign.
In a "Moral Budget" proposal released with the Institute for Policy Studies, they point out that these investments benefit the whole country -- not just students. One California study they cite found that for every $1 invested in public colleges and universities, the state gained $4.50 due to reduced poverty, fewer arrests and incarcerations, and higher tax revenues.
Making college free for all students would also help erase the stigma of financial aid. Rahmeto, who was born in the United States to Ethiopian immigrant parents, said she often felt other students looked down on her for having financial aid as an undergraduate at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
"It's like, what, I'm sorry I wasn't born into a life where my parents could afford to pay 60-some thousand dollars a year," she said. "But why am I any less deserving than you? I worked even harder to get where I am now."
Even before the pandemic, the exorbitant cost of higher education was holding our country back. That's especially true now. Free college would allow young people who cannot find jobs now to learn new skills and knowledge that will better position them to join the labor market once the crisis is over.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
After graduating from college last year, Hayat Rahmeto moved back in with her parents and planned to work two jobs to save money for law school. Then the pandemic hit. She lost one job, with Delta Airlines, and the prospects for finding another were bleak.
Fortunately, with her parents providing rent-free housing, Rahmeto realized she could afford to attend her local community college in Omaha, Nebraska, where she's now working on a paralegal certificate program.
It will cost Rahmeto about $6,000. "This is the cheapest, most cost effective way to find out if law school is what I really want to do with my life," Rahmeto told me.
Youth unemployment is sky-high, reaching over 20 percent for people aged 16 to 24 this June. Like Rahmeto, many other recent graduates may decide to continue their education instead of entering the job market.
With few jobs available under the current crisis, it's even more important to eliminate the financial barriers to continuing education.
But not all will have access to rent-free housing or a spare $6,000 for community college--nevermind the skyrocketing cost of traditional universities.
According to a 2018 study from the Levy Institute, the average cost of college tuition more than doubled as a share of median household income between 1990 and 2014. Including room and board, the average cost of college is more than a third of a typical household's earnings.
This helps explain today's aggregate student loan debt of $1.6 trillion.
These high costs are especially problematic for poor communities and people of color like Rahmeto, who make up a far larger share of heavily indebted borrowers than their share of the student population.
With few jobs available under the current crisis, it's even more important to eliminate the financial barriers to continuing education.
Senator Bernie Sanders has proposed a College for All plan that would eliminate tuition and fees at public four-year colleges, universities, and community colleges. Additionally, it would cancel student debt for 45 million Americans within six months and ensure low-income students can attend college debt-free.
Free college proposals have received support from a growing number of organizations, including the Poor People's Campaign.
In a "Moral Budget" proposal released with the Institute for Policy Studies, they point out that these investments benefit the whole country -- not just students. One California study they cite found that for every $1 invested in public colleges and universities, the state gained $4.50 due to reduced poverty, fewer arrests and incarcerations, and higher tax revenues.
Making college free for all students would also help erase the stigma of financial aid. Rahmeto, who was born in the United States to Ethiopian immigrant parents, said she often felt other students looked down on her for having financial aid as an undergraduate at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
"It's like, what, I'm sorry I wasn't born into a life where my parents could afford to pay 60-some thousand dollars a year," she said. "But why am I any less deserving than you? I worked even harder to get where I am now."
Even before the pandemic, the exorbitant cost of higher education was holding our country back. That's especially true now. Free college would allow young people who cannot find jobs now to learn new skills and knowledge that will better position them to join the labor market once the crisis is over.
After graduating from college last year, Hayat Rahmeto moved back in with her parents and planned to work two jobs to save money for law school. Then the pandemic hit. She lost one job, with Delta Airlines, and the prospects for finding another were bleak.
Fortunately, with her parents providing rent-free housing, Rahmeto realized she could afford to attend her local community college in Omaha, Nebraska, where she's now working on a paralegal certificate program.
It will cost Rahmeto about $6,000. "This is the cheapest, most cost effective way to find out if law school is what I really want to do with my life," Rahmeto told me.
Youth unemployment is sky-high, reaching over 20 percent for people aged 16 to 24 this June. Like Rahmeto, many other recent graduates may decide to continue their education instead of entering the job market.
With few jobs available under the current crisis, it's even more important to eliminate the financial barriers to continuing education.
But not all will have access to rent-free housing or a spare $6,000 for community college--nevermind the skyrocketing cost of traditional universities.
According to a 2018 study from the Levy Institute, the average cost of college tuition more than doubled as a share of median household income between 1990 and 2014. Including room and board, the average cost of college is more than a third of a typical household's earnings.
This helps explain today's aggregate student loan debt of $1.6 trillion.
These high costs are especially problematic for poor communities and people of color like Rahmeto, who make up a far larger share of heavily indebted borrowers than their share of the student population.
With few jobs available under the current crisis, it's even more important to eliminate the financial barriers to continuing education.
Senator Bernie Sanders has proposed a College for All plan that would eliminate tuition and fees at public four-year colleges, universities, and community colleges. Additionally, it would cancel student debt for 45 million Americans within six months and ensure low-income students can attend college debt-free.
Free college proposals have received support from a growing number of organizations, including the Poor People's Campaign.
In a "Moral Budget" proposal released with the Institute for Policy Studies, they point out that these investments benefit the whole country -- not just students. One California study they cite found that for every $1 invested in public colleges and universities, the state gained $4.50 due to reduced poverty, fewer arrests and incarcerations, and higher tax revenues.
Making college free for all students would also help erase the stigma of financial aid. Rahmeto, who was born in the United States to Ethiopian immigrant parents, said she often felt other students looked down on her for having financial aid as an undergraduate at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
"It's like, what, I'm sorry I wasn't born into a life where my parents could afford to pay 60-some thousand dollars a year," she said. "But why am I any less deserving than you? I worked even harder to get where I am now."
Even before the pandemic, the exorbitant cost of higher education was holding our country back. That's especially true now. Free college would allow young people who cannot find jobs now to learn new skills and knowledge that will better position them to join the labor market once the crisis is over.
Judge Rossie Alston Jr. ruled the plaintiffs had failed to prove the groups provided "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
A federal judge appointed in 2019 by US President Donald Trump has dismissed a lawsuit filed against pro-Palestinian organizations that alleged they were fronts for the terrorist organization Hamas.
In a ruling issued on Friday, Judge Rossie Alston Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that the plaintiffs who filed the case against the pro-Palestine groups had not sufficiently demonstrated a clear link between the groups and Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.
The plaintiffs in the case—consisting of seven Americans and two Israelis—were all victims of the Hamas attack that killed an estimated 1,200 people, including more than 700 Israeli civilians.
They alleged that the pro-Palestinian groups—including National Students for Justice in Palestine, WESPAC Foundation, and Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation—provided material support to Hamas that directly led to injuries they suffered as a result of the October 7 attack.
This alleged support for Hamas, the plaintiffs argued, violated both the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Alien Tort Statute.
However, after examining all the evidence presented by the plaintiffs, Alston found they had not proven their claim that the organizations in question provide "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
Specifically, Alston said that the claims made by the plaintiffs "are all very general and conclusory and do not specifically relate to the injuries" that they suffered in the Hamas attack.
"Although plaintiffs conclude that defendants have aided and abetted Hamas by providing it with 'material support despite knowledge of Hamas' terrorist activity both before, during, and after its October 7 terrorist attack,' plaintiffs do not allege that any planning, preparation, funding, or execution of the October 7, 2023 attack or any violations of international law by Hamas occurred in the United States," Alston emphasized. "None of the direct attackers are alleged to be citizens of the United States."
Alston was unconvinced by the plaintiffs' claims that the pro-Palestinian organizations "act as Hamas' public relations division, recruiting domestic foot soldiers to disseminate Hamas’s propaganda," and he similarly dismissed them as "vague and conclusory."
He then said that the plaintiffs did not establish that these "public relations" activities purportedly done on behalf of Hamas had "aided and abetted Hamas in carrying out the specific October 7, 2023 attack (or subsequent or continuing Hamas violations) that caused the Israeli Plaintiffs' injuries."
Alston concluded by dismissing the plaintiffs' case without prejudice, meaning they are free to file an amended lawsuit against the plaintiffs within 30 days of the judge's ruling.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump," wrote one critic.
US President Donald Trump on Saturday morning tried to put his best spin on a Friday summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin that yielded neither a cease-fire agreement nor a comprehensive peace deal to end the war in Ukraine.
Writing on his Truth Social page, the president took a victory lap over the summit despite coming home completely empty-handed when he flew back from Alaska on Friday night.
"A great and very successful day in Alaska!" Trump began. "The meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia went very well, as did a late night phone call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, and various European Leaders, including the highly respected Secretary General of NATO."
Trump then pivoted to saying that he was fine with not obtaining a cease-fire agreement, even though he said just days before that he'd impose "severe consequences" on Russia if it did not agree to one.
"It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Cease-fire Agreement, which often times do not hold up," Trump said. "President Zelenskyy will be coming to DC, the Oval Office, on Monday afternoon. If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin. Potentially, millions of people's lives will be saved."
While Trump did his best to put a happy face on the summit, many critics contended it was nothing short of a debacle for the US president.
Writing in The New Yorker, Susan Glasser argued that the entire summit with Putin was a "self-own of embarrassing proportions," given that he literally rolled out the red carpet for his Russian counterpart and did not achieve any success in bringing the war to a close.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump, and still more time on the clock to prosecute his war against the 'brotherly' Ukrainian people, as he had the chutzpah to call them during his remarks in Alaska," she wrote. "The most enduring images from Anchorage, it seems, will be its grotesque displays of bonhomie between the dictator and his longtime American admirer."
She also noted that Trump appeared to shift the entire burden of ending the war onto Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and he even said after the Putin summit that "it's really up to President Zelenskyy to get it done."
This led Glasser to comment that "if there's one unwavering Law of Trump, this is it: Whatever happens, it is never, ever, his fault."
Glasser wasn't the only critic to offer a scathing assessment of the summit. The Economist blasted Trump in an editorial about the meeting, which it labeled a "gift" to Putin. The magazine also contrasted the way that Trump treated Putin during his visit to American soil with the way that he treated Zelenskyy during an Oval Office meeting earlier this year.
"The honors for Mr. Putin were in sharp contrast to the public humiliation that Mr. Trump and his advisers inflicted on Mr. Zelenskyy during his first visit to the White House earlier this year," they wrote. "Since then relations with Ukraine have improved, but Mr. Trump has often been quick to blame it for being invaded; and he has proved strangely indulgent with Mr. Putin."
Michael McFaul, an American ambassador to Russia under former President Barack Obama, was struck by just how much effort went into holding a summit that accomplished nothing.
"Summits usually have deliverables," he told The Atlantic. "This meeting had none... I hope that they made some progress towards next steps in the peace process. But there is no evidence of that yet."
Mamdani won the House minority leader's district by double digits in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary, prompting one critic to ask, "Do those voters not matter?"
Zohran Mamdani is the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, but Democratic U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries—whose district Mamdani won by double digits—is still refusing to endorse him, "blue-no-matter-who" mantra be damned.
Criticism of Jeffries (D-N.Y.) mounted Friday after he sidestepped questions about whether he agreed with the democratic socialist Mamdani's proposed policies—including a rent freeze, universal public transportation, and free supermarkets—during an interview on CNBC's "Squawk Box" earlier this week.
"He's going to have to demonstrate to a broader electorate—including in many of the neighborhoods that I represent in Brooklyn—that his ideas can actually be put into reality," Jeffries said in comments that drew praise from scandal-ridden incumbent Democratic Mayor Eric Adams, who opted to run independently. Another Democrat, disgraced former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, is also running on his own.
"Shit like this does more to undermine faith in the institution of the Democratic Party than anything Mamdani might ever say or do," Amanda Litman, co-founder and executive director of Run For Something—a political action group that recruits young, diverse progressives to run for down-ballot offices—said on social media in response to Jeffries' refusal to endorse Mamdani.
"He won the primary! Handily!!" Litman added. "Does that electorate not count? Do those voters not matter?"
Writer and professor Roxane Gay noted on Bluesky that "Jeffries is an establishment Democrat. He will always work for the establishment. He is not a disruptor or innovator or individual thinker. Within that framework, his gutless behavior toward Mamdani or any progressive candidate makes a lot of sense."
City College of New York professor Angus Johnston said on the social network Bluesky that "even if Jeffries does eventually endorse Mamdani, the only response available to Mamdani next year if someone asks him whether he's endorsing Jeffries is three seconds of incredulous laughter."
Jeffries has repeatedly refused to endorse Mamdani, a staunch supporter of Palestinian liberation and vocal opponent of Israel's genocidal annihilation of Gaza. The minority leader—whose all-time top campaign donor is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, according to AIPAC Tracker—has especially criticized Mamdani's use of the phrase "globalize the intifada," a call for universal justice and liberation.
Mamdani's stance doesn't seem to have harmed his support among New York's Jewish voters, who according to recent polling prefer him over any other mayoral candidate by a double-digit margin.