On increased resistance and unity, I saw this came out on Friday. A small step, but maybe a bit of a beginning. Interestingly most (not all) of the schools are smaller LAC that probably have less to lose from targeted federal research funding cuts, and religiously affiliated schools that have some additional cover too.
This has been a terrible time for the academy in the US. I think it's right that there is an available response that involves resistance to many of the moves being made, and that would be better than the capitulation we've seen from ivies.
I'm not sure that justified form of resistance is the one we would most likely see if schools were in a mood to resist, though. I kind of suspect they would resist by defending the things that young faculty and grad students care most about--the invasive DEI stuff and the aspects of the anti-Israel activism that did actually violate content-neutral rules and laws. I'm not sure university culture is in a place now where academic freedom would be the highest priority to defend.
Although I've been urging colleagues at my own institution to take worst case scenarios seriously, let me try to persuade you to be a bit more optimistic about how far this is likely to go.
I think what we see from the administration right now is the result of an alliance between three groups of right-wingers, which overlap somewhat but not completely. One group is behind everything Vance has said and wants to see universities either destroyed or turned into New Colleges. Another genuinely wants to stamp out what they see as "anti-Semitism." A third group seeks the end of DEI and the enforcement of a colorblind interpretation of civil rights law against universities.
That third group may be the largest one, out of the people who really care about this issue, since a lot of those who care are invested in universities. A lot of the people who belong to the third group don't overlap with the other two--they believe in academic freedom. And the third group has pretty much had a total victory already.
This means that once the dust settles a bit more, we may see members of the third group really breaking away from the alliance. Indeed, we are already seeing some members of the third group break with the alliance, especially on the Mahmoud Khalil issue (Niall Ferguson) but sometimes much more broadly (Richard Hanania).
I don't think it would even be legal for public universities to give the first and second groups most of what they want. So there will be a fight against them regardless. But if the third group peels away from them, there may not be enough consensus on the right for them to guide the administration's policy so thoroughly.
No, I mean real right wing people who might have some pull with Trump admin types. Hanania and Ferguson probably aren't close enough to the MAGA party line to meet that criterion, but it's hard to say, because the admin's actions on civil rights law are clearly inspired by Hanania's book. I am thinking of the sort of people who are on the right but who are supportive of the U of Austin project.
It may be that the overly optimistic part of my idea is the assumption that such people would have any sway with the admin. But Rufo does seem to maintain friendly relations with a lot of people who think that way but are pro-academic freedom.
On increased resistance and unity, I saw this came out on Friday. A small step, but maybe a bit of a beginning. Interestingly most (not all) of the schools are smaller LAC that probably have less to lose from targeted federal research funding cuts, and religiously affiliated schools that have some additional cover too.
https://www.presidentsalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/PA-brief.pdf
Thanks for sharing that Troy, some interesting links in references
This has been a terrible time for the academy in the US. I think it's right that there is an available response that involves resistance to many of the moves being made, and that would be better than the capitulation we've seen from ivies.
I'm not sure that justified form of resistance is the one we would most likely see if schools were in a mood to resist, though. I kind of suspect they would resist by defending the things that young faculty and grad students care most about--the invasive DEI stuff and the aspects of the anti-Israel activism that did actually violate content-neutral rules and laws. I'm not sure university culture is in a place now where academic freedom would be the highest priority to defend.
Although I've been urging colleagues at my own institution to take worst case scenarios seriously, let me try to persuade you to be a bit more optimistic about how far this is likely to go.
I think what we see from the administration right now is the result of an alliance between three groups of right-wingers, which overlap somewhat but not completely. One group is behind everything Vance has said and wants to see universities either destroyed or turned into New Colleges. Another genuinely wants to stamp out what they see as "anti-Semitism." A third group seeks the end of DEI and the enforcement of a colorblind interpretation of civil rights law against universities.
That third group may be the largest one, out of the people who really care about this issue, since a lot of those who care are invested in universities. A lot of the people who belong to the third group don't overlap with the other two--they believe in academic freedom. And the third group has pretty much had a total victory already.
This means that once the dust settles a bit more, we may see members of the third group really breaking away from the alliance. Indeed, we are already seeing some members of the third group break with the alliance, especially on the Mahmoud Khalil issue (Niall Ferguson) but sometimes much more broadly (Richard Hanania).
I don't think it would even be legal for public universities to give the first and second groups most of what they want. So there will be a fight against them regardless. But if the third group peels away from them, there may not be enough consensus on the right for them to guide the administration's policy so thoroughly.
Who knows, but this is what I hope for.
For the third group, are you thinking of Steven Pinker for example?
No, I mean real right wing people who might have some pull with Trump admin types. Hanania and Ferguson probably aren't close enough to the MAGA party line to meet that criterion, but it's hard to say, because the admin's actions on civil rights law are clearly inspired by Hanania's book. I am thinking of the sort of people who are on the right but who are supportive of the U of Austin project.
It may be that the overly optimistic part of my idea is the assumption that such people would have any sway with the admin. But Rufo does seem to maintain friendly relations with a lot of people who think that way but are pro-academic freedom.
One of my goals in writing this post was to reach and possibly persuade this third group
God willing!