Trump is demanding the appointment of conservatives to various positions in academia to balance (i.e., protest) what he calls a leftist bias in academia. But that's not enough for him, and he's demanding that research directions be determined and holding government research budgets for academia hostage.
What does Trump want from universities and why does he seek to weaken higher education, which is the largest export sector, for powerful ideological reasons.
As of the latest moves, Trump is focusing on a vigorous campaign against institutions of higher education in the United States, attempting to impose on them a series of demands aimed at weakening what he perceives as the "WOK ideology" and preserving the traditional values of society as the far right sees them. As part of the new policy announced by the administration, a number of clear demands were made, each of which was intended to intervene deeply in the academic structure, management, and policies of each institution, while threatening to freeze billions of dollars in government funding if the demands were not met.
The first and central clause of the policy is its demand for a complete ban on the use of masks on university campuses. According to the administration, removing masks prevents activists and students from using them as camouflage and hiding their identities during demonstrations, thereby encouraging invisible protest performances. According to White House representatives, these measures are intended to prevent organized demonstrations that could disrupt public order and prevent threats to campus security [1].
In addition, Trump is demanding that leading universities such as Harvard formally apologize—a demand that has been accompanied by a threat to freeze $2.2 billion in funding if the demands are not met. The demand for an apology stems from the claim that the academy is deflecting harsh criticism of the administration’s actions and is displaying an “ideological disapproval” of fundamental national values, with the administration arguing that failure to apologize is a sign of a lack of commitment to values that have become an American tradition. [2].
Another demand that is receiving emphasis is the renewal of the managerial and administrative structure of the universities, with changes in the mechanisms of cooperation in the management of the campus – what is known as “shared governance”. According to the demands, a number of faculty and management members who are considered to be influenced by “Waki” positions should be removed or replaced, and representatives should be appointed who can strictly monitor internal policy. This initiative embodies an attempt by the government to directly control educational institutions whose status is perceived as encouraging tendencies that oppose the values of the state – a move that is seen as an attempt to prevent the flow of opinions that oppose conservative views.
Another essential element of the policy is the elimination of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. The administration claims that these programs encourage racial discrimination and support the so-called “identity regime,” which, according to the claims, weakens the values of hard work and personal excellence. According to the administration, eliminating these programs and instead implementing a policy of strict adherence to academic and professional criteria will strengthen democratic values and maintain social order.
In addition to these moves, the administration plans to take action against student groups involved in protests over the Palestinians and protests against foreign policy. Claiming that these demonstrations encourage anti-Semitism and support terrorism, the government has announced that it will take legal and administrative measures against students and activists involved, which could include immigration actions and visa restrictions for international students.
One of the most prominent cases that received public discussion concerned Columbia University, where government pressure was applied to freeze $400 million in funding until the institution agreed to implement the demands, including a change in safety policy and a ban on masks. At this university, in addition to examining a new administrative structure, it was noted that issues of freedom of expression and ensuring internal order must also be addressed, while preserving academic values and freedoms [3In this case, Columbia University surrendered, but the frozen funds were not returned and are being used by Trump to make further demands in the future.
Over the past period, after the administration announced the decisive demands, strong responses were published from academia and the civil community. At Harvard University, for example, the demand for an apology was rejected. And administrators emphasized the importance of academic independence and freedom. This response, along with similar objections at institutions such as Princeton, Cornell, and Northwestern, led to legal escalation and even regional organizations that organized to protect the rights of the institutions and ensure their continued existence without government interference aimed at imposing political ideology.
Concern in university towns
Meanwhile, a public outcry has erupted in cities around top universities, adding to concerns that the government's actions could damage the economic engine that academia contributes to. In areas such as Boston, San Francisco and Austin, where universities are a key driver of innovation and economic growth, excited communities have expressed their protest, demanding that the government respect the independence of the institutions and restore trust in democratic processes.
At the same time, the administration claims that the measures are intended to restore order and prevent growing gaps in society, while preserving traditional values on which American society was founded. The administration believes that such intervention is necessary to combat what it refers to as the “hoax virus” and prevent negative influences on academic decisions, with the move being part of a broader policy to improve transparency and efficiency in public institutions.
At the beginning of Trump's term, politics and academia were faced with major structural change issues, with demands seen as part of an attempt to return control to the traditional American public. However, academics warn that the policy could severely harm scientific research, slow the development of advanced technologies, and harm the regional and national economy.
In light of the growing controversy, legal and public organizing continues against what appears to be a government attempt to infiltrate the academic world. Legal entities are already raising claims of violation of freedom of expression and the right to independent research, and public debate on the issue is taking place throughout the country. The current struggle indicates a deep crisis in the relationship between the state and institutions of higher education, with the consequences of these moves also likely to affect scientific excellence and technological innovation in the United States in the years to come.
Trump slaughters the goose that lays golden eggs
In her article "Trump is killing one of our strongest exports" Published in the Washington Post, Catherine Rampell argues that President Trump's efforts to reduce the US trade deficit are effectively leading to the destruction of one of the strongest export sectors of the United States - higher education. According to Rampell, academic institutions have become a major economic engine, with exports of educational services reaching a higher level than exports of natural resources such as gas and coal in the past year, and the surplus in this sector was even greater than the surplus in the export balance in the civil aviation industry. The American success in achieving a surplus in trade in services stems from the irreplaceable value of investment in advanced research and technological development, and leading universities are successful in attracting international students who constitute a vital source of income that helps finance scholarships and financial support for American students. Furthermore, the flow of international students serves as a significant tool in the exercise of soft power, since studying in the US transfers the values of democracy, human rights, and traditional legal procedures to their countries of origin.
However, Rampell argues that Trump’s policies, which are based on a traditional industry-focused approach from the 50s, are leading to destructive actions against academic institutions. Under the administration, vital scientific grants have been cut, billions of dollars in funding have been frozen, and visas for international students have been revoked, sometimes based on baseless accusations or even minor offenses such as traffic violations. All of this, she argues, not only hurts the ability of institutions to invest in research and development but also constitutes an obstacle to attracting international talent, leading to significant damage to the image and economic strength of the general field. Rampell concludes that while Trump claims his measures will help the United States deal with a trade deficit, in fact, he is harming the current economic engine and a major export vehicle, thereby leading to an economic navigation that is far from the realities of the 21st century.
Note, as an Israeli I am concerned about the connection between this move and the fight against anti-Semitism. Will canceling cancer research make one Jew safer? In addition, Trump will eventually leave, the connection of Jews to the destructive Trump administration will only exacerbate anti-Semitism, not reduce it.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
One response
As usual, the arrogance of the academic losers is rearing its head: no matter what Trump does, the enlightened will attack like drooling Dobermans. Apparently, the institutions of higher education in the US (and Israel as well) are free to do whatever they want, as long as the money keeps flowing. Every whine of the respected editor of the newspaper is first and foremost anti-something: Trump, the right, the conservatives, "the primitive people of yesterday," etc. The righteous and the puritans probably know better than anyone how the world should be run...