University Presidents Against “Government Overreach”
“As leaders of America’s colleges, universities, and scholarly societies, we speak with one voice against the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education.”
So begins a statement, coordinated by the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU), signed by the presidents, chancellors, and other leaders of over 170 US institutions of higher education.
The “Call for Constructive Engagement“, continues:
We are open to constructive reform and do not oppose legitimate government oversight. However, we must oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses. We will always seek effective and fair financial practices, but we must reject the coercive use of public research funding.
America’s system of higher learning is as varied as the goals and dreams of the students it serves. It includes research universities and community colleges; comprehensive universities and liberal arts colleges; public institutions and private ones; freestanding and multi-site campuses. Some institutions are designed for all students, and others are dedicated to serving particular groups. Yet, American institutions of higher learning have in common the essential freedom to determine, on academic grounds, whom to admit and what is taught, how, and by whom. Our colleges and universities share a commitment to serve as centers of open inquiry where, in their pursuit of truth, faculty, students, and staff are free to exchange ideas and opinions across a full range of viewpoints without fear of retribution, censorship, or deportation.
Because of these freedoms, American institutions of higher learning are essential to American prosperity and serve as productive partners with government in promoting the common good. Colleges and universities are engines of opportunity and mobility, anchor institutions that contribute to economic and cultural vitality regionally and in our local communities. They foster creativity and innovation, provide human resources to meet the fast-changing demands of our dynamic workforce, and are themselves major employers. They nurture the scholarly pursuits that ensure America’s leadership in research, and many provide healthcare and other essential services. Most fundamentally, America’s colleges and universities prepare an educated citizenry to sustain our democracy.
The price of abridging the defining freedoms of American higher education will be paid by our students and our society. On behalf of our current and future students, and all who work at and benefit from our institutions, we call for constructive engagement that improves our institutions and serves our republic.
Has your university or college president signed the statement? If so, I encourage you to express to them your support for their initial step of solidarity in defense of academic freedom.
Hear ye, hear ye. May these signatories file their separate but united amicus curiae briefs on behalf of Harvard’s lawsuit against the Trump administration.
I only have done a quick scan but I’m not seeing any Texas institutions on here. Didn’t they get the message? I’m surprised there don’t even seem to be any private institutions like Trinity or Rice. Given our legislature’s current plans to take over curricula across the public university sphere, I wish we’d see some support here from the leaders of public institutions too.
Same with Georgia. 🙁
Between the evening of April 22 (yesterday) and 10AM April 23 (today), the list grew from 238 institutions to 305, and it will probably continue to grow. But there are very many more universities and colleges in the US, and the state universities from 39 states are missing (as of the 10AM update): Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas (as you note), Utah, Vermont, West Virginia.
There are also private institutions which receive(d) substantial federal funding that are also not (yet) represented, e.g., The Johns Hopkins University, Cal Tech, Rockefeller University, Dartmouth College, University of Southern California, University of Rochester, Wake Forest University, Brigham Young University (those in addition to Trinity and Rice).
The absence of Florida’s state universities is not surprising. And I have some idea why the chancellors of the fifteen North Carolina state universities would hesitate to sign. I’d guess that the leaders of, say, University of Connecticut and Rutgers University, are not under the same sorts of pressures as FL and NC state universities’ leaders.
Some of those who have signed are the leaders of large professional organizations, e.g. the Association of American Universities, but it would still be helpful if all of its members were represented individually among the list of those signing.
There is some kind of safety in numbers and it would increase the power of the statement were almost all non-profit higher ed institutions (even those that have not received much federal funding) were represented.
Trump, as usual, is creating chaos. But let us not forget that there is a real problem on campuses that needs to be addressed – in a more reasonable fashion. https://youtube.com/shorts/ZlC_mMYyYco?si=VpN5hllQ9gmB3J8J
I’m curious because the clip doesn’t show much – but why is the video captioned antisemitism at Harvard?
I mourn for the universities and deplore the way this administration is targeting them. But the double standards here are breathtaking.
It’s certainly frustrating to see that for so many in the academy, the ‘commitment’ to intellectual freedom only arises when those ‘committed’ to it are at risk of some sort of social or material consequences somehow supported by appeal to there being some putatively morally problematic speech/expression. And that similarly, that the ‘commitment’ to opposing discriminatory and abusive behavior only obtains where opposing the discriminatory and abusive behavior, openly, would predictably lead one to gain social status in left of center circles. Transparently unprincipled, self-interested moral pageantry, as the interspersion of supposedly principled outcries, often by newly-minted American legal scholars, against the Trump admin’s actions against university funding with discussions of (often completely unrelated to the moral issues) ‘survival strategies’ should indicate. And this is not to say that we should not discuss either topic; we should.
If your response to seeing people whom you don’t like be persecuted is, ‘they earned it,’ then you might be the one who’s unprincipled.
I agree. And that’s not my response. Projection perhaps? Either way, fight the good fight 😀
I’m sorry, your grammatically and morally muddled comment made it hard for me to comprehend your actual response.
Lol what a wonderfully frumpy response! Thank you for that. Perhaps in return I can offer you a simplified version, not that those with your intellectual and moral prowess need it: Intellectual freedom is too important to publicly receive transparently one-sided, self-serving support from those of us entrusted with the responsibility to cultivate and sustain it. It’s great to sign this statement and engage in other ways of opposing the Trump admin’s targeting of universities. I would like to see comparably vigorous support of intellectual freedom from the same individuals now supporting it when, e.g., junior academics receive threats from senior academics for publishing ‘harmful’ articles through standard-fare, peer-review processes. But in such cases, one encounters primarily crickets and rationalizations (“the harmful article is too bad to have been published in the first place!”; “they don’t even engage with the literature!”; “nobody is entitled to have their work published!” etc.). Hence my cynicism.
I agree with you. But I never feared deportation until now. Now is not the time to litigate what the left did wrong (a long list).
That said, I find the Columbia case a lot more revealing of unprincipled posturing than Harvard. The latter’s signaling is genuinely costly. They are steadfast in abiding by principles that, yes, they may have flouted in the past, but that they think are worth standing up for. OTOH, Columbia showed to the world that their previous posturing was always just that: posturing. They folded as soon as their interests were threatened. Their previous progressive creds are forever lost because we now know this was just cheap self-interested signaling.
Hear hear. I think it’s really important that we not be distracted by teensy unimportant things like students getting snatched off the street by masked secret police and detained with no due process or schools being punished for not controlling student speech and keep our focus on the real victims of censorship. You know all those poor martyrs whose books got rejected and had to publish with less prestigious presses. Or can’t give talks anymore. Or whose colleagues and students were mean to them. We must never forget that wokism is the real threat to free speech and inquiry.
This is a statement of principles and aspiration: It says they “share a commitment”; it doesn’t claim they’ve always lived up to that commitment in every case. That’s presumably why the statement also says they’re “open to constructive reform.” And in fact, the university that has just sued the Trump admin has also taken various measures recently aimed at encouraging expression of “a full range of viewpoints.”
Given the Trump admin’s detention and attempted deportation of students for exercising their constitutional rights, it would be negligent, to put it mildly, for a statement by the Association of American Colleges and Universities not to make clear that deportation of students in retaliation for the exercise of their rights is unacceptable.
In addition to targeting universities, the Trump admin, as is well known, has also been targeting specific students on grounds that, even if one gives the admin every benefit of the doubt, are unpersuasive and, put more accurately I think, are unconstitutional. For the Sec. of State to unearth a rarely-used statute to make a “personal determination” that a student’s presence in the country “compromises” a “compelling U.S. foreign policy interest” on very flimsy grounds shows this admin’s interest in repressing speech and, IMO, its moral bankruptcy.
Thanks for your measured reply — I appreciate it. You make good points, and I take them, on the whole. But also see my reply to Julian.
I used to share such concerns and hold unpopular views under my real name. I now post under a pseudonym because I do not want to be deported. These are not double standards, the concerns are different in kind.
Facing detention, deportation and rendition is not remotely the same as facing the disapproval of some of one’s colleagues. The two are not even sufficiently comparable for there to be a “double standard”.
I appreciate this. You and other less measured (but equally pointed!) commenters are certainly right about “detention, deportation, and rendition” being unlike what normally falls under “retribution” or “censorship.” I should have exempted those from my accusation, and should be called out for having neglected to do so. And I take it to be obvious, but you never know: I think this campaign of detention, deportation, and rendition is despicable.
I do stand behind my claim, though, that institutions of higher education, including too many on the list of signatories, have been too willing to let the federal government intrude on student life (see: standing by as the Obama administration threatened to defund them if they did not criminalize normal sexual behavior and dismantle due process) and too willing to count as “free inquiry” only that which studiously avoids using the wrong words or exploring the wrong ideas.
But, yes, good point, and consider it taken!
I understand where you are coming from, but I had to grimace at “unlike what normally falls under retribution or censorship.”“
Something must be very askew if our “normal” concept of censorship is not about state violence but about peer disagreement. That’s not normal at all! State violence is the paradigm.
The fact that we “normally” reach for peer disagreement when thinking “censorship” only shows to me that our recently “normal” assessment of what counts as censorship is seriously misguided. I’d go as far as saying that nothing that was going on before 2025 was at all deserving of the label.
Yeah no I obviously picked the wrong word. With “normally” I meant: what should fall under retribution or censorship. As in the things that should be counted under retribution or censorship should not include detention!
I think “peer disagreement” misdescribes the phenomena of civil tyranny I’m thinking of.
For example, when the family-owned bakery by Oberlin’s campus had to shutter because Oberlin oversaw student protests and a boycott premised on the false grounds that the bakery was “racist,” I think “peer disagreement” misses the important aspects of the episode. It was retribution for a postulated thought-crime. The fifth-generation bakery was wiped out of existence because it wanted some shoplifters, who happened to be black, held accountable for their crime.
To progressives with little patience for the attachment to meaning-bestowing traditions, that might not seem like that big of a deal, especially since the family got a lot of money out of it in a civil suit. But I think in good conscience we would recognize that that kind of loss is literally priceless. And I just don’t see how this episode is aptly described as a “disagreement.”
I think you’re right, though, that “censorship” isn’t an apt term for these kinds of cases. And I suspect you’re right that censorship’s paradigm cases are state-perpetrated. But I’ll have to think more about that, and about the history of these kinds of cases.
Thanks again for the back-and-forth.
Oh, I did not consider such cases at all. Mostly because they don’t seem to be well-described as exhibiting a lack of commitment to a full range of viewpoints or any other phrase that one might lift from the aacu statement (what would be the “viewpoint” that is under contention here). So my mind didn’t go there.
For what it’s worth, I agree that “peer disagreement” is also a poor description of such cases, as would be “censorship”.
(My second sentence is a bit ambiguous. Let me make it clear here that didn’t intend to count you among the “less measured” commenters.)
To be frank, your comment is exactly what I have thought since the moment Trump started his authoritarian rampage. All of a sudden universities are places for “freedom of thought and expression”. I don’t remember this being much of a priority in, say, 2021.
Most of the responses to you are lamentably predictable. Yes, obviously literally kidnapping people is far worse than *just* an abysmal culture and atmosphere for free enquiry (nevermind professional impossibility in some cases). No, obviously taking over universities by force is not justified. Yes, the current state of affairs is uniquely appalling.
Yet in what wise does the new and greater wrong suddenly prove that everything was fine before? In what way does it prove that universities were healthy before someone came at them with an axe?
Whenever the hypocrisy of the “free speech” position is brought up, someone is ready to explain that actually things are worse now. Indeed. But claiming that things are extra bad now and everything before was just some trifling issue serves only as an absolution for the conscience; it proves to no-one that American universities actually care about free speech as a concept, only something important when it impinges on their interests.
And, ironically, this is why you should always care about intellectual freedom as a concept — because the tables always turn eventually, and it’s best to not have made a reputation for being against something when it’s finally time to invoke it.
I’ve been saying for a long time that the right was a much bigger threat to free speech than the left. And now that I and people like me have been proven right you are trying to act like it vindicates your views. To the extent that I can make sense of your argument– and I must admit that I’m not going to waste too much of my precious time on Earth trying– it seems to run like this: The left was mean to the right and now they’re mad and this is what you get for making them mad. This sort of “look what you made me do” line is pretty much what every guy who beats up his wife or kids says and it’s just pathetic. I used to actually believe that people on the right meant what they said about personal responsibility and accountability. There are a few exceptions but it’s become clear most don’t.
“I’m not going to waste too much of my precious time on Earth trying.”
That explains the wild mischaracterization.
If you bothered to spend enough of your “precious time on this earth” to write a response, perhaps you might also deign to try to understand the point you’re replying to first?
But if argumentation on a philosophy forum is too much work to read, perhaps an analogy:
The playground bully enjoys shoving the smaller children around, hitting them, stealing their possessions, and so on. One day, on his way to school, the bully is attacked by a group of older boys, who beat him up quite severely, and steal his money. The bully suddenly discovers that he thinks he has a right to not be assaulted.
Did the bully “deserve what he got”? No. Is what happened to him more severe than what he does to others? Yes. Is he a hypocrite for suddenly invoking “a right to not be assaulted”? Also yes. Might his peers feel less sympathetic to him because of his hypocrisy? Also yes.
In the scenario that exists in your first response, the bully is claiming that he has a right to not be assaulted, whilst denying that he ever did anything wrong before.
Perhaps you’ll say that university culture being the bully is a mis-characterisation entirely, and that really nothing was wrong before this. Clearly I (and many others — middle-ground institutions such as the Heterodox Academy would not exist otherwise) disagree.
I have not denied that the American “Right” is a bigger threat to the freedom of speech than the “Left” (I associate with neither). But if you only believe in intellectual freedom when it suits your side of an argument, you don’t really believe in it at all, and I will not cease to deplore self-serving hypocrisy, even if I deplore what Trump et al. are doing even more.
I agree with everything you write except for the insinuation that all the replies, or even Harvard’s statement imply that everything was just fine before.
I attempted to amend “most” to “a few” just after publishing, but I struggle with Daily Nous on a phone — when I press submit things don’t seem to always save.
I agree that it’s not most.
The important observation here (that I and others make tirelessly) is that state violence is different IN KIND to whatever complaints one might have had about the “culture” before.
Therefore, these new attacks are misconstrued (and dangerously so) as in-kind responses or as merely a stronger form of an existing problem. There is, thus, no reason to think that any (alleged) foregoing lack of care for intellectual freedom is an important factor here.
The most important point however is this: regardless of whether there is or was an “abysmal culture for free inquiry” (a highly contested claim), *the claim that the threat to free inquiry from the right is and was more significant than the treat from the left has been vindicated beyond any reasonable doubt*. Everybody who denied this should eat some crow.
I can’t say much to your last point, though I don’t disagree. I personally have never been in the middle of any discussions about whether, given unchecked power and democratic mandate, the American “Left” or Trump et al. would be worse for intellectual freedom. All I can note is that 2016-20 played out rather differently in regard to universities to this time round, so perhaps there was a reason to doubt your claim?
As for the middle paragraph: in terms of actions taken, being abducted is clearly different-in-kind to simply being forced out of your career, yes. But the statement above reads:
“Our colleges and universities share a commitment to serve as centers of open inquiry where, in their pursuit of truth, faculty, students, and staff are free to exchange ideas and opinions across a full range of viewpoints without fear of retribution, censorship…”
This is what I and Symbolicum mean: not a claim that people being abducted is just a small escalation from the previous state of affairs, but that universities are suddenly characterising themselves in terms they seemed to completely disregard three years ago, in order to defend from these different-in-kinds attacks. It comes off as hypocritical and self-serving — even though that paragraph is exactly how I believe a university should be characterised.
As I mentioned in my response to Enrico, if you genuinely believe that there really was nothing wrong with intellectual freedom in universities before a year ago, then there’s nothing much to discuss.
I think you should say or think something about my last point. In your response to Enrico, you mentioned the Hx and characterized it as a “middle ground” organization.
Now, I don’t see it that way (I think they are starkly partisan), but I appreciate that you disagree. But regardless, since you don’t disagree with my last point, you should then also not disagree with the following:
For its stated “middle ground” goals, organizations like Hx (and others and their members) have been radically mistaken in where they directed their energies. If we assume that they were sincere about their motives , they are due for some very critical self-reflection on that point, on how they’ve contributed to the present situation, and on how they missed this clear and present danger.
I’m of the mind that people in that intellectual sphere have demonstrated such a dramatic lack of awareness of the real danger that they cannot be taken seriously in future debates about academic freedom.
It is worth flagging that this is hardly a uniquely US issue at this point, as the Conservative leader in Canada has threatened to withhold funding by weaponizing antisemitism in much the same way Trump has. The difference is that since the election is still upcoming, much more can be done to nip it in the bud. Surely this is something worth bringing to readers’ attention, despite not being a narrowly American issue.
https://www.montrealgazette.com/news/article886622.html
The rate of signing for the Constructive Engagement statement has dropped to close to zero. Of the 657 signers as of May 29, there are
189, or about one-third, of the 566 are classified as Carnegie R1, R2 or “Research.” (There are 542 institutions classified as Carnegie R1, R2 or “Research.” I would guess that these institutions would suffer the greatest losses as a result of attempted federal grant cancellations.)
It can’t be assumed that members of associations are implicit signers. For example, the President of the American Association of Universities signed, but half of the 69 member universities in the USA did not sign and at least some of the latter are clearly refraining.
Among the institutions that are classified as Carnegie R1, R2 or “Research” and have not signed are:
public universities in the Georgia system, public universities in the Ohio system, public universities in the Texas system, public universities in the UNC system, California Institute of Technology, Emory University, Dartmouth College, Howard University, Johns Hopkins University, New York University, Pennsylvania State University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Stanford University, Syracuse University, University of Chicago, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, University of Pittsburgh, University of Southern California, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, Virginia Commonwealth University, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Washington University St Louis, William & Mary, Yeshiva University; and all of the 114 institutions classified as Carnegie R1, R2 or “Research,” in AK, AL, AR, AZ, FL, ID, KS, KY, LA, MS, MT, ND, NH, OK, SC, SD, TN, UT, WV, WY.
The many communities in which, for example, very large universities of AZ, FL, GA, NC, OH, PA, TX and VA are located may suffer negative economic effects. If so, I wonder if this will have any significant effect on the attitudes of voters who lose jobs in those locales – assuming that there are future elections in which actual votes matter.