The Eagle’s editorial board is composed of its staff but does not represent every individual staffer’s views. Rather, it provides an insight into how The Eagle, as an editorially independent institution, responds to issues on campus.
The rollout of the Eagle Access Course Materials Program has left students — especially freshmen — confused, frustrated, and in some cases, double-charged for textbooks, despite the program being marketed as a way to save students to save money. As the administration advertises the program’s benefits, its unclear communication with students and faculty, frequent technical glitches on the opt-out portal and questions about the calculation of the fee have made Eagle Access feel more like an exploitative revenue stream than a student-friendly initiative.
From the start, the University implemented the Eagle Access program with minimal transparency. After announcing the program via email in April 2025, a $324 fee was automatically added to every full-time undergraduate’s Fall 2025 tuition bill without a direct explanation or any subsequent University emails. The Eagle’s reporting found that many students were unaware of the program, and the initial email enrolling students into the program did not mention the cost.
Communication about opting out was even more lacking. Students said the emails from Follett, the operator of the AU Campus Store and the Eagle Access Program, were confusing. This confusion was exacerbated since students were unaware they would be receiving emails from Follett to opt out of the program, rather than directly from AU. The emails were also sent so infrequently that they got lost in inboxes.
Freshmen in particular were left in the dark. They didn’t receive the explanatory email in April, and information about the program was limited during orientation activities. When transitioning to college, the last thing students need is confusing and infrequent communication about a program that adds unnecessary costs to their tuition.
Although acting Provost and Chief Academic Officer Vicky Wilkins wrote that students would “have the flexibility to easily opt out of the program,” opt-out information was seemingly buried. But the University can clearly communicate effectively, even when it has partnerships with other companies.
For example, students receive emails from Academic HealthPlans about the University’s mandatory health insurance, in which both opt-in and opt-out information is clearly and repeatedly communicated each semester. In comparison, Eagle Access felt intentionally confusing and easy to overlook.
Although the program’s full name includes the term “course materials,” most communications about it referred to the program simply as “Eagle Access.” This shorthand version of the name gave some students the incorrect impression that the program was intended for students with disabilities and related to receiving accommodations.
Some students reported technical glitches and difficulties when attempting to opt out of Eagle Access. Follett’s website crashed in July and again in August, leaving some students unable to access the online portal until after the add/drop deadline to opt out had passed. The burden was placed squarely on students to navigate a confusing, glitchy process rather than the University providing clear, repeated notice.
The $324 fee for full-time undergraduate students has fueled further skepticism. Many students say they have routinely spent less on textbooks than this flat charge. The program covers only materials intentionally designated as “required” by professors, with some students forced to purchase additional books not included. Some students reported that their professors did not inform them that their textbook was included, so they effectively paid twice.
The value also varies by major. Some science and law students may get their money’s worth, but the majority of the Eagle’s staff reported that they have never spent anywhere close to $324 per semester on textbooks. Some students argue that the program would be more popular if it included other necessary materials, such as technology.
Some faculty were not uniformly informed about how the system works or what was expected of them. The confusion extended to incorrect materials being provided, digital-only access in technology-resistant classes and poor dialogue between those overseeing the program and faculty. Instead of a universal solution, the flawed execution has unnecessarily cost professors’ time and students’ money.
The University maintains that Eagle Access increases convenience, helps with timely access to materials and offers potential savings, especially for those in majors with expensive textbooks. By negotiating with publishers, AU claims it saved enrolled students “up to 60 percent off retail prices.” In theory, the opt-out exists, and for some, the program does offer real value. At scale, a universal program could reduce inequities in access to books. It is possible that the University had good intentions, but it has failed to adequately communicate about and implement a program that truly makes course materials accessible for students.
AU’s messaging about “saving students money” feels facetious when most students don’t experience actual savings. We have drawn direct parallels to AU’s recent financial woes and a pattern of overcharging students, leaving many with a sense of being taken advantage of rather than supported.
Even if some students save money, the Eagle Access Program is fundamentally flawed. The lack of transparency, poor rollout and one-size-fits-all pricing model have created mistrust among students and staff. AU is not supporting students through this program; it is exploiting them.
This piece was written by Quinn Volpe and edited by Alana Parker and Walker Whalen. Copy editing done by Sabine Kanter-Huchting, Ariana Kavoossi and Emma Brown.
