For good reason, prestigious colleges’ reputations have taken a nosedive.
Admissions offices have arbitrarily applied extremely high criteria to Asian American candidates for decades, all the while claiming to be concerned about justice and “equity.” Academic publications were taken in by blatantly false articles about rape culture in dog parks because they were ideologically blind. Faculty members were required to swear allegiance to progressive principles by submitting diversity, equality, and inclusion declarations when they were hired. Additionally, some university administrations permitted protesting students to interrupt courses, establish unlawful encampments, and damage university property following the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas terrorist strikes.
The Trump administration’s desire to “move fast and break things,” frequently disregarding the law, is at odds with top colleges and risks squandering the first genuine opportunity for significant reform of higher education in decades.
The failure of colleges to sufficiently safeguard free inquiry and tolerate racial preferences for underprivileged communities might be attributed to left-wing intolerance. However, the institution runs the danger of becoming even more politicized under right-wing dictatorship, which would put an end to the hope of long-term reformers like myself.
The newest move by the Trump administration against Harvard exemplifies all that is wrong with the way the government is doing things. The institution received a letter from government officials threatening to withhold funding unless it underwent radical reforms, such as changing its administrative structure and accepting applicants and employees depending on their political beliefs. Harvard has taken legal action against the government, citing their failure to adhere to the procedures outlined by Congress when it came to the revocation of funding for alleged violations of the Civil Rights Act, among other grievances. The administration now claims that these demands were sent accidentally, even going so far as to blame Harvard for taking the letter seriously. The school’s credibility will be irreparably tarnished if they win, which seems quite probable. This would affect the administration’s ability to get funds for other colleges.
That being said, the letter was just the most recent in a disturbing trend of unwarranted overreach and very blatant disrespect for university affairs.
Edward Martin, who served as Trump’s temporary US attorney for the DC in February, threatened students at Georgetown University’s law school with the loss of job chances with the Department of Justice unless the school removed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) from its curriculum. Both Martin’s demands and the prospect of a hiring boycott raised legitimate legal concerns about the university’s ability to exercise its First Amendment right to free speech in the classroom.
A more myopic and pointlessly controversial strategy would be difficult to conceive of: When fighting censorious DEI programs at colleges, such an invasion is needless since such programs are administrative and not academic. The government should merely remain out of classrooms. As a result of the absence of Republican support for Martin’s confirmation, Trump was compelled to withdraw his nomination for the position.
The administration’s declared goals, which include fighting antisemitism and preventing males from participating in women’s sports, have led to the arbitrary freezing of research funds at several colleges. It is reasonable to question the ideological bias of federal grantmaking organizations like the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health for initiatives like social justice math training for high school teachers, racial hiring practices in the scientific community, and social justice engineering programs.
However, other vital initiatives, such as the use of AI to identify early indications of breast cancer, have been terminated by the administration’s careless approach. Alternate policy shifts are easy to implement and would safeguard important public-beneficial scientific research while also reducing politically biased research. To avoid supporting politically motivated initiatives, the government might, for instance, alter the evaluation criteria for future awards. The government may choose not to renew current funding or even let them expire if academics and institutions are not prepared to comply.
This may seem like nitpicking to some who are critical of universities; after all, if the federal government has the power, it doesn’t matter if the modifications are executed with the correct protocol. On the other hand, they fail to take into account the faculty’s need for long-term buy-in and the decentralized structure of institutions.
Those powerful university friends who might aid in implementing and sustaining long-term improvements are being turned away by the Trump administration’s present strategy, which forces them to choose between right-wing authoritarianism and left-wing intolerance.
Keep in mind that moderate liberals have also been pushed to the outside due to their inability to meet the most recent progressive ideological demands; conservatism were the initial to sound the alarm on the excesses.
There are a number of influential individuals in higher education, including trustees who have the power to halt DEI statement mandates, donors who have the power to cut funding when colleges make serious mistakes, and moderate instructors who can create safe spaces for students to discuss controversial topics. Even while deradicalization was already on the horizon, the Trump administration’s moves have made life tough for those sympathetic players.
For example, Obama appointee and former Harvard president Larry Summers criticized DEI remarks last year, calling them “reasonable or inappropriate.” However, his current belief is that the strategy employed by the Trump administration towards Harvard “will backfire as even those most critical of the university pull together against dictatorial overreach.” Academic freedom and free speech have long been targets of left-wing attacks, which Steven Pinker, co-chair of Harvard’s Council on Academic Freedom, has long opposed. Trump, according to Pinker, is “following the playbook of totalitarian dictatorships.”
The Trump administration is encountering needless pushback from even traditionally reform-averse university administrations. Take Columbia University as an example; it was one of the initial schools whose funding the government cut. The government’s requests that Columbia prohibit masks during protests and boost security were not met, and the university’s budget remains blocked. Harvard and other colleges notice this and feel pressured to either do it or not do it. The university administration sees fighting as their only viable alternative to negotiating.
While Trump is in office, his administration’s erratic behavior has the potential to intimidate institutions into reducing undesirable activity. These “wins” nonetheless would be deceiving. Until the Democrats regain control, any concessions would be temporary. Following the Trump administration’s current strategy of supporting the executive branch through legislative means, Democrats would presumably pass legislation to prevent such future possibilities. When it comes to guaranteeing consistent financing for fundamental scientific research, many reformers of higher education may even be on board with these initiatives. This would leave the present crop of left-wing university administrators with nearly total freedom. Higher education reformers, even the more moderate ones, will face censorship, and political litmus tests and rigorous speech policing will likely return.
The Trump administration has time to right the ship and tackle the serious problem of ideological capture in schools while it’s still early. However, it must do so meticulously, legally, and with an eye toward the future. The moment to establish a foundation is now. Congress should act on some of the most recent presidential directives, such as those that reject disparate effect theory and investigate accreditors who break civil rights laws, since they are a positive beginning.
The government must incorporate de-escalation into any approach it pursues. This necessitates sincere promises to reinvest when targets are achieved. Rather than being cornered and forced to fight back, universities should be given an opportunity to collaborate with the administration.
There are those who believe that colleges have not been held responsible enough by the current system of legal constraints and oversight. Perhaps reformers might have gotten more done in less time if they had been more forceful and disruptive. However, this fails to identify the issue. Reforms to higher education in the past failed due to a lack of determination rather than a lack of philosophy. Despite Trump’s administration’s strong resolve, they act irresponsibly since they don’t consistently follow ideals. Universities must be saved, not destroyed, and this can only be achieved by a well-defined strategy and the uniform enforcement of legal requirements. The same logic that says we shouldn’t force our political views on teachers by way of required diversity statements also applies here.
Moving forward doesn’t need compromising our principles for the sake of maximalist strategies. In order to demonstrate our respect for the academic and research goals of universities, we must use the resources at our disposal in a lawful manner. The battle to restructure higher education will be only the beginning for Trump if his administration keeps using power as a showpiece instead of a tool for strategy. He’ll make it impossible to win.
