How Should Yale Respond to Trump Attacks on Elite Universities?
As I write this, the Trump administration has made or begun attacks on several elite American universities, including Columbia, Penn, Johns Hopkins, Harvard, and Princeton. The government’s leverage comes from threats to cancel federal research contracts. It has pulled hundreds of millions of dollars of funds from Columbia and Penn; it is investigating Harvard regarding $9 billion in contracts and grants; and it has suspended several dozen grants to Princeton. Johns Hopkins announced that it will cut 2,000 employees due to reduced federal funding.
Trump’s professed aims include ending university DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) policies and to quash on-campus antisemitism. For example, the New York Times reported on April 1 (in an article by Vim Patel) that the Trump Administration accused Harvard of “failing to protect Jewish students and promoting ‘divisive ideologies over free inquiry.’” The mantle of protecting Jewish students from antisemitism seems ill-fitting, however, when donned by a President who (among other things) has voiced support for neo-Nazis marching at Charlottesville and has claimed that he will protect the interests of White Christian nationalists. What is more plausible is that Trump’s real ultimate aim is the same as that of other aspiring dictators: silencing potential sources of political opposition.
The Trump administration is reaching into college campuses in other ways. NBC News has reported that the Trump administration has revoked the visas of 300 foreign-born students attending U.S. Colleges. It has released a list of ten colleges that will be scrutinized by the Justice Department for failing to adequately protect Jewish students and faculty: in addition to Harvard, Columbia, and Johns Hopkins, that list includes George Washington University, NYU, UCLA, UC Berkeley, USC, Northwestern, and the University of Minnesota.
Yale’s Response
So the question I wish to pose to Yale’s Class of 1970 is: how should Yale respond to the foregoing actions by the Trump administration that seek to alter how American universities govern themselves? More specifically:
- Since Yale has not been singled out, should it keep its head down?
- Should Yale instead express public support for academic freedom and object to politically-motivated attempts to interfere with open discourse on American college campuses?
- Should Yale join with other colleges in protesting the Trump Administration’s political invasion of free speech on campus? (It hasn’t up until now.) Is this sort of collective action more effective (and safer) than acting alone?
- There have been many long-standing complaints about liberal bias in American colleges (going back as far as “God and Man at Yale,” by William F. Buckley, Jr.) Should Yale take the initiative to examine whether speech is in fact as free at Yale as it proclaims?
- Is the present political atmosphere so exceptional and so dangerous (think Thomas Paine) that Yale should, for reasons of patriotism, take the initiative to speak publicly about current political efforts to control campus speech?
From reading the responses it seems that there is a consensus if not quite unanimity. I add my opinion to the majority.
Yale should speak out against the Trump attacks on universities. Yale should try to organize a coalition of universities to oppose this assault on academic freedom. Since many of the actions of the Trump gang are harming ALL institutions of higher learning (elimination of grants, “claw-back” of moneys already committed, revocation of student visas, interference in faculty affairs, etc) a class-action suit would be justified.
I am ashamed that Yale has chosen, or so it seems, to coast under the radar on these issues. Trump knows only one way to fulfill his wishes–to extort his “enemies” by eliminating jobs or withholding federal funds over which he should have no control. That’s congress’s job. The complexity of American institutions, academic and otherwise, is way beyond this man’s understanding. His approach to most things is to shoot first based on his “gut feeling” and then deal with the consequences later if he has to repair the damage, but only in so far as the consequences may damage what others think of him. He has not an ounce of empathy for anyone else. Unfortunately, the consequences of his decisions during his first 100 days will not become truly evident until several months from now, and by that time some of the damage may be irreparable. As a leading academic institution, Yale should be at the forefront of pushing back on any control the Trump administration chooses to bring to bear on how we exercise our freedoms–of speech, how we think, how we learn, how we teach, and what we believe in. There may be pain involved, but we should not allow ourselves to be subjected to this kind of extortion.
I agree with Rich Schwartz that Trump’s actions have little to do with protecting Jews or free speech. As with everything he has done so far, he simply wants to consolidate power in his own hands. I don’t know why anyone would believe any claims made by Trump or on his behalf. It’s clear he’s just a lying bully seeking vengeance on anyone who crosses him. This is not government. Yale should join with other universities, condemn the withholding of funds that support vital research, and insist that universities should govern themselves. Research, teaching, and academic freedom should not be held hostage to one man’s vanity. Nor should any part of any government dictate what is said or taught at Yale.
Yes, Yale should speak out against President Trump’s attack on universities. Yale should also help to organize a collective statement from many universities.
As universities face unprecedented threats from the Trump administration, there are both pitfalls and opportunities.
Universities that are thought of as elite must avoid elitism in defending themselves. Students and campuses should not have special privileges. The issue is not academic freedom; it is First Amendment freedom.
Universities have the opportunity to serve the nation, not just the campus, by being in the vanguard of defending freedom of speech, due process, and the rule of law. Trump threatens all these democratic principles. If it does speak out, Yale will be standing up for the rights of all Americans, not just students and professors.
Trump is also undermining institutions, both within and outside the government, that are meant to be nonpartisan. Universities are one such target among many. Nonpartisan institutions have never been flawlessly nonpartisan, the “administrative state” has its failures, and our universities are far from perfect. But they are based on principles that are worth protecting from a would-be autocrat.
And finally, universities must not let the real problem of antisemitism be used as a pretext by an authoritarian xenophobe who has repeatedly embraced white supremacists.
Larry Markowitz
For the record, the statement of the 34 Harvard student organizations did not even mention Hamas, let alone applaud it.
If you read the actual statement (available at https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/10/10/psc-statement-backlash/ ), it does not in any way endorse violence. Rather, it was effectively a reframing of JFK’s oft-repeated quotation: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable”.
Although my loyalty remains with Yale, I have been on Harvard’s faculty for the past 21 years. I’m proud of the stand it has taken.
I don’t think Trump’s opposition to anti-semitism runs deep. As far as I can tell the only people for whom he has deep affection are himself and his children (certainly not his wives). Anti-semitism has been an excellent pretext to do what other despots have done as they consolidate their power – destroy the intellectual elite and cripple the universities. This is what Hitler did in the 1930, Mao in the 1960s and Orban more recently.
It was a great move for him for two other reasons. First, there has been a frightening rise in anti-semitism over the past few years, so even though his response is in my view wrong and, dare I say it, evil, there is a real problem to be addressed. Second, prior to the election, it served to move Jews and their political donations, which have skewed heavily Democratic, to the Republicans. I am ashamed for the short-sightedness of my people in playing right into his hands.
So, I think those of us who value intellectual freedom, research, higher education and truth have no choice but to do what we can to withstand his attacks on all we hold dear.
I agree with Alan and disagree with William. Harvard has been absolutely right in its current position, and I wish Yale had been the leader, not busy keeping its head down. The notion that Jewish students at Yale are under threat is absurd. According to the Jerusalem Post (as of several years ago), 27 percent of Yale undergrads self-identified as Jewish. I know that percentage has come down, but I suspect it is still a substantial figure. (The population of Jews in the U.S. is roughly 2.4%.) Unfortunately, what some Jews regard as antisemitism is tough criticism (legitimate, in my opinion) of Israel, which increasingly deserves it. Obviously what happened on October 7 was despicable, but what Israel has done since then is equally despicable, if not worse. Tens of thousands of Gazans have been killed; Gaza itself has been flattened. And that doesn’t even include what Israel, the IDF and Jewish settlers have done in the West Bank. And if, indeed, some students at Harvard celebrated the Hamas attack on October 7, that is also despicable but, at least for now, it is protected speech. The First Amendment is not limited to speech which is non-objectionable; we wouldn’t need a First Amendment for that. It protects offensive, ugly speech, so long as the speech does not cross over to incitement to violence (such as what Donald Trump did on January 6, 2021 — what price did he pay, BTW?). If we are truly concerned about protecting minorities (ALL minorities), then universities like Yale and Harvard and Columbia should be focused on the policies and positions coming from the Trump regime. I, for one, hope President McInnis speaks out in full support of Harvard’s president.
During the 12 years I served as a college president (plus an additional 18 months as an interim chancellor at another institution), I avoided making public statements on issues that did not affect the mission, values, or freedom of higher education, realizing that whatever positions I espoused would be taken as an institutional position. When it came to issues that were pertinent to the enterprise of higher education I did my best to explain clearly, articulately, and passionately what I believed. Now that I am retired, I make my opinions known on whatever issues I care about, which is liberating, refreshing (for me), and sometimes infuriating (for others). But that is a mere preface to my answer to this question.
Academic and intellectual freedom are core values of Yale and other colleges and universities of excellence (I might exclude certain types of institutions which specialize in teaching a particular faith tradition, but even that could be debated). For that reason, if no other, it is crucial for Yale to articulate and champion its values as eloquently as possible – not as a targeted attack on any political party, but as a matter of principle. When/if the Trump administration comes after Yale (as I believe it inevitably will) then Yale must redouble its efforts to convey a convincing message about freedom of speech, grounded in American values. Humility is never amiss: it’s okay to concede that matters of free speech, so integral to the academic enterprise, are complicated and that no institution will get them right every single time. Also, students and faculty should be allowed latitude to put forward objectionable and even ridiculous ideas at times as long as they do not violate the principles of free speech or University regulations. When such violations do occur, Yale should “follow it’s policies”. That was always my watchword when leading such an institution. It’s the best way to make sure that enforcement and discipline, if necessary, are applied fairly and consistently.
There is so much more I could say, but I have probably bored everyone enough. So endeth the lesson.
Totally disagree with William Rothschild on this. Yes, it was disgraceful that student organizations came out in favor of Hamas, but there is a dialogue to be had to educate the young on the nature of Hamas, but also the extreme Israeli reaction (as well as its treatment of the West Bank). The answer is not to threaten but to encourage. Furthermore, why should anyone think that test taking is the marker for academic achievement? Is there really discrimination against Asian-American applicants?
In response to your first question:
My father-in-law was a Nuremberg prosecutor. Some lines he repeated the Martin Niemoller quotation:
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
This is an opportune time to evaluate the concepts of academic freedom and the freedom of speech. There is/has been, a liberal leaning, not bias, at Yale. This is a “selection bias” of high quality academic institutions and not intentional.
The current and past Trump administrations have fostered hate, and have been vocal and hateful to women, Muslims, immigrants, non-white Christians. Anti-semitism, which is real, is being used as an excuse to wield greater presidential power and suppress intellectuals as did Hitler.
I would urge that major universities should band together behind Harvard in support of academic freedom to preserve free speech and academic freedom. No academic system is perfect, but if the government takes over our best academic institutions, they will ruin them as they have medicine.
Trump’s right on this one. Harvard’s abject Jew hatred blew out on October 7 or so, 2023, when 34 so-called student organizations applauded Hamas before Israel retaliated, and therefore before any relative harm theories. Yale has suffered instances of Jew hatred, but has steered a course to stay under the headlines. I have trouble understanding why federal funds should go to institutions that rankly discriminate against Asian-related applicants and have done so little for so long to combat horrible acts toward Jews. Your very statement of q. 2 — “politically-motivated attempts to interfere with open discourse on American college campuses” is terribly biased. When Black students couldn’t get into Little Rock schools, Eisenhower called out the National Guard. I encourage you answer two questions: (i) did the actions at, say Harvard and Columbia move beyond “free speech” to property destruction, trespass, physical blocking of public spaces and the like? and (ii) if you substitute “Black” for “Jewish” for everything that has occurred at, say, Harvard and Columbia, and then how would you rewrite your questions above and how would you answer them?