Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) compared efforts to regulate the for-profit college industry to the Holocaust during a speech Tuesday. Speaking at the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, Foxx invoked a famous Holocaust maxim in order to defend for-profit colleges against increased scrutiny. “They came for the for-profits, and I didn’t speak up,” the North Carolina congresswoman said.

Insider Higher Ed has the details:

In criticizing the private college presidents, Representative Virginia Foxx, the North Carolina Republican who leads the subcommittee on higher education, adapted the famous statement from the German theologian Martin Niemöller on Germans who ignored Nazi persecution. (“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a communist.”)

“‘They came for the for-profits, and I didn’t speak up…’” Foxx said. “Nobody really spoke up like they should have.”

Even if her choice of words is shocking, her willingness to stand up for the industry is of little surprise. Foxx is heavily-financed by the for-profit college industry. As the Center for Responsive Politics reported, “In her first year on the [Higher Education and Workforce Training] subcommittee, Foxx picked up at least $48,668 from PACs or individuals affiliated with for-profit colleges.”

Though Foxx is readily willing to advocate on behalf of an industry that saddles students with debt and leaves them with few employment prospects, she paradoxically dislikes people who take out student loans. Said Foxx on a radio show last year, “I have very little tolerance for people who tell me that they graduate with $200,000 of debt or even $80,000 of debt because there’s no reason for that.” In fact, many of the students with such large amounts of debt can trace their troubles to the fact that largely unregulated for-profit colleges are extraordinarily expensive.

Foxx is no back-bencher in the GOP caucus. She was elected to her party’s leadership last year to serve as Secretary for the House Republican Conference and has been touted as a possible Senate candidate in 2014.

According to preliminary findings of an investigation by Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, many for-profit colleges pay their executives based almost exclusively on corporate profitability, without taking into account student outcomes. Cummings’ office received documents from 13 for-profit schools, which showed just where the schools place their proirities:

The documents obtained during the course of this investigation indicate that the single most significant measure for determining executive compensation at these schools is corporate profitability, including factors such as operating income, earnings, profits, operating margins, earnings per share, net cash flow, and revenue. Companies use various combinations of these factors to determine the majority of executive compensation.

As discussed below, some companies provided no documents demonstrating links to student achievement when determining executive compensation, other companies provided documents with vague references to student achievement, and other companies provided documents that included specific compensation percentages linked to student performance measures. In all cases, however, the majority of compensation paid to company executives is based on measures relating to corporate profitability rather than student achievement.

As ThinkProgress has documented, predatory for-profit schools rely heavily on taxpayer dollars to produce revenue, yet leave many of their students buried in debt and without the education necessary to find a good job. They engage in aggressive marketing tactics, promising students employment opportunities that never materialize.

Meanwhile, CEOs of for-profit colleges make 26 times more in compensation than the heads of traditional universities. For instance, Strayer University CEO Robert Silberman was paid $41.9 million in 2009. (HT: Chris Kirkham)

The number of state attorneys general investigating for-profit colleges grew to 23 in 2011, as states’ top enforcers sought answers to why for-profit schools are leaving students buried in debt with bleak job prospects, all while taking most of their revenue from the federal government. Though the investigations are separate, the attorney generals formed a working group last spring to share information about the colleges.

But despite the widespread investigations, few AGs have taken action. Attorneys general Lisa Madigan of Illinois and Jack Conway of Kentucky have filed lawsuits against for-profits, but few others have joined as the group struggles to find “common targets,” Conway said in a recent Senate hearing:

“This effort is distinct from the tobacco and mortgage settlements,” in which attorneys general united against the nation’s largest cigarette manufacturers and banks, he said. “Here we have such a diffuse group of schools, with some operating only in certain states.

“We’re sharing information,” he continued. “But we’re having some difficulty finding common targets.”

Conway has sued three for-profit colleges in Kentucky, alleging that the schools misled students and the federal government about financial aid and inflated job-placement numbers. In February, Madigan filed suit against Westwood College, alleging that it misled students about its accreditation.

The working group may now have a common target that could lead to further suits, Conway said in the Senate hearing. The group is now working with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to investigate the for-profits’ institutional student loan processes, in which the schools issue loans they don’t expect to be repaid in order to game federal laws governing financial aid practices.

The high cost of college and other factors are causing American students to drop out before receiving their degree at higher rates than in other developed countries, according to a new study from Harvard University. Only 56 percent of the students who enter America’s colleges and universities graduate within six years, while only 29 percent of students who enter two-year programs complete their degrees within three years, the study found.

The Harvard study is backed by other research showing that Americans complete college at lower rates than the other, poorer countries tracked by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development:

The Harvard study’s assertions are supported by data collected by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development for its report “Education at a Glance 2010.” Among 18 countries tracked by the OECD, the United States finished last (46 percent) for the percentage of students who completed college once they started it. That puts the United States behind Japan (89 percent), and former Soviet-bloc states such as Slovakia (63 percent) and Poland (61 percent).

One factor in the higher drop-out rates, according to the Harvard study, is the rising cost of a college education. The cost of college has nearly sextupled since 1985 and the total amount of student loan debt held by Americans surpassed $1 trillion in 2011. With as many as 25 percent of borrowers behind on their loans, the number of Americans seeking relief from student loan debt has increased substantially.

At for-profit colleges, the problems are even worse. More than three-quarters of for-profit students fail to earn a degree after six years, according to a 2011 report, and for-profit students are even more likely to default on their loans than regular students.