Nearly a quarter of a year has passed since the start of the Trump administration’s assault on academia, amidst an ongoing 18-month long Republican initiative against the heads of leading educational institutes. It’s now evident that the allegations of antisemitism and D.E.I. utilized in these offensives are mere smokescreens. The real motivations behind these actions appear to be an overarching disdain for intellectualism, and an insatiable quest for wealth and control. Trump’s attempts at constructing a system akin to a mafia state involves distributing wealth & authority from a singular entity, modeling himself as the ‘Don’.
In this radical power framework, universities present themselves as autonomous entities, arenas of both intellectual and political influence. However, these institutions face the threat of their independence being decimated. For universities to effectively counteract this threat, mere resistance against Trump’s authoritative pull or establishing unified fronts won’t suffice. They must set aside overarching distractions, such as the preoccupation with rankings, donor gratifications, and campus luxuries, and reemphasize their fundamental purpose: generating and spreading understanding.
This approach of prioritizing intellectual growth over other distractions has been used successfully by scholars in nations grappling with autocratic regimes. This strategy is doubly effective, especially against Trump, whose perception of all matters is characteristically transactional, driven by a profit-first mindset. Universities, in his eyes, are no different from businesses or nations, to be subjugated through the potent weapon of financial intimidation on an individual basis, ensuring submission and hampering potential unison.
Had Trump chosen to levy a tax on universities’ endowments, it could possibly have garnered widespread public endorsement. Nonetheless, such a move could risk unifying the affected universities. Hence, the preferred approach involves targeting research grants specific to each university, a tactic designed to instill division and subsequent weakening.
Columbia University was the first to experience this bullying, capitulating to the heavy-handed demands within a fortnight after losing $400 million in grants and agreements. A sacrifice was called for, their interim president, Katrina Armstrong, when the initial submission failed to secure the return of financial resources. Trump’s satisfaction remained elusive, and now he potentially demands further concessions from Columbia in the form of direct governmental oversight.
The Universities of Pennsylvania, Harvard, Cornell, Brown, Johns Hopkins, and Northwestern are also receiving individualized financial threats, and yet collective opposition from these academic heavyweights remains absent. There is no unified declaration for safeguarding academic freedom or a reminder of the significant societal contributions made by these establishments.
The ease with which these educational bastions have been pitted against each other is surprisingly disconcerting. It seemingly overshadows the competition observed among law firms vying for the Don’s business. This could be due to the slightly more attuned success definition of law firms with their paramount function (upholding the rule of law), as compared to universities drifting from their vision of fostering and disseminating knowledge.
Despite being prominent institutions, American universities predominantly attribute their success to factors like the size of their endowment or their rankings based on numerous students applying. Ratings by agencies such as U.S. News & World Report, which measure the value of education partly by grads’ initial salaries, also matter greatly.
Another notable trend is the competition for high-profile individuals within academia, which is often driven by perceived financial incentives rather than intellectual prowess. Here, what attracts them are the loudest names, assuming they will bring with them the heaviest wallets.
In this narrative, the universities aren’t active accomplices in this story; they are rivals. Their aspirations exceed the desire for a restoration of the status quo. These institutions seek expansion and would prefer to enhance their research funding, potentially at the expense of a fellow institution that was unlucky enough to lose theirs.
Each university, seemingly lost in a whirlwind of rankings and endowments, may be forgetting the true essence of their purpose. The faculty and their contributions to the world, the knowledge they produce and disseminate, should serve as the primary measures of success for these institutions, as opposed to the number of students they attract or the value of their endowment.
In today’s complex geopolitical climate, these institutions of higher learning need to recapture their fundamental mission once more. Breathing life back into their core function of intellectual pursuit can help them resist the transactional approach adopted by the current administration, thus safeguarding their independence.
If history has taught us anything, it is that the free flow of knowledge and unfettered intellect will always triumph over transactional politics. Universities, even in the face of the strongest winds, must hold to this truth firmly. By doing so, they can weather any storm, reinforcing their place as staunch, independent bodies of knowledge and learning.