Authoritarians and Higher Education.
Is it any wonder why a fascist government would want to attack Higher Education? Tyrants want mind control. They cannot stand a body of critical thinkers and innovators. Mussolini forced Italian professors to take loyalty oaths. At one time, many medical professionals in the middle east were trained in Egypt, but as that government became more authoritarian the medical field has suffered. Same with Turkey. It once had great secondary education, now it is diminished.
Is it any wonder, Trump is trying to exert control over American Higher Education? He hates free thought, and criticism coming from people who are demonstratively smarter than him. The idea of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is anathema to his white christian nationalist views. Of course, he is trying to make it sound like his is restoring America's ideals.
And he is going after the most prestigious universities first, thinking if he can get them to buckle, other lesser-known schools will fall in line. He thinks he is welding a pretty big club by threatening to withhold federal research funding. He succeeded at Columbia, but he is going to have a harder time at Harvard. All day I have been wondering why would he really want to take on the oldest private school in the nation? Harvard stands to lose more than $2.9 billion in this go around, but it appears the Harvard administration realizes its academic principles and mission are more important than money.
That's not to say smaller schools are not feeling the pressure too. Just today my local paper reported the University of Idaho will have a $57 million federal grant cancelled because it had to do with helping farmers adapt to climate change--another nasty word in Trump world. Idaho is not that big of a school. It is from a very conservative state. It can reapply for a grant more in line with the Trump criteria though.
Then there are reports of International Students losing their visas and their records are also disappearing--meaning they will not even be able to receive transcripts necessary to reapply to other schools outside of the US.
I am wondering what others are seeing in the colleges and universities near them.
We really have to support Harvard's resistance. If they cave, we will be rescinding back to the dark ages.
Is it any wonder, Trump is trying to exert control over American Higher Education? He hates free thought, and criticism coming from people who are demonstratively smarter than him. The idea of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is anathema to his white christian nationalist views. Of course, he is trying to make it sound like his is restoring America's ideals.
And he is going after the most prestigious universities first, thinking if he can get them to buckle, other lesser-known schools will fall in line. He thinks he is welding a pretty big club by threatening to withhold federal research funding. He succeeded at Columbia, but he is going to have a harder time at Harvard. All day I have been wondering why would he really want to take on the oldest private school in the nation? Harvard stands to lose more than $2.9 billion in this go around, but it appears the Harvard administration realizes its academic principles and mission are more important than money.
That's not to say smaller schools are not feeling the pressure too. Just today my local paper reported the University of Idaho will have a $57 million federal grant cancelled because it had to do with helping farmers adapt to climate change--another nasty word in Trump world. Idaho is not that big of a school. It is from a very conservative state. It can reapply for a grant more in line with the Trump criteria though.
Then there are reports of International Students losing their visas and their records are also disappearing--meaning they will not even be able to receive transcripts necessary to reapply to other schools outside of the US.
I am wondering what others are seeing in the colleges and universities near them.
We really have to support Harvard's resistance. If they cave, we will be rescinding back to the dark ages.
Comments
Trump and Co. would probably like to ban the works of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn from being sold at Barnes & Noble, but since he has no power over what a private vendor sells, he takes the convenient route of harassing institutions that are reliant upon easy-to-cancel government funding.
Tangentially, but since we're talking about Sarasota and Republicans...
What are most people around there calling the Gulf Of Mexico now?
I call it the Gulf of Mexico. I think all my friends do as well. DeSantis signed this ghastly thing the other day, but screw him.
https://www.wusf.org/politics-issues/2025-04-15/desantis-signs-bills-to-legally-change-name-of-gulf-of-mexico-to-gulf-of-america-in-florida
The right in the US has long been suspicious of or downright hated institutions of higher learning because they think universities indoctrinate students with liberal ideas. Nowadays they'd say "woke," but they have ranted for decades about how universities are too liberal.
They didn't start with state-funded schools. Harvard isn't a state school. Neither is Columbia, the first one they went after. Pretty much all institutions of higher education get grants of various sorts from the federal government, including state schools, but it should be noted that in the US the "state" in state-funded schools refers to the fifty states.
Now, since Big Bang Theory has made it cool to be a nerd, a geek, a dweeb, that kind of insult doesn't do the job of marginalizing people any more. Now those people are called "conspiracy theorists".
It's something that crosses administrations and decades. It's a generational curse, not just a symptom of authoritarianism. Though it is that too.
AFF
This is probably a reflection of both an authoritarian mindset and the backgrounds of many of the people in Trump's inner circle. The authoritarian mind is hierarchical, so it seems natural to them to start with the most prestigious universities. To the authoritarian mind Harvard is the "king" of American higher education, so it makes sense to start with the king. This is also a common affectation among American prestige media, where any examination of "college life" will usually focus on a small number of high-prestige institutions.
As @Ruth points out public colleges and universities seem to be mostly beneath the notice of these people for the moment. The noted exceptions being state-level officials who will target their state's flagship land grant college but, true to form, focus on that to the exclusion of any other institution of higher education. There are about 13.5 million students enrolled in public colleges and universities in the U.S. Slightly more tha 60,000 undergraduates attend Ivy League schools.
I don’t think it’s a given how that background might contribute to the way this plays out. The conservative justices may well agree that the Ivies are too liberal and too “woke.” (See Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard for a majority of the Court siding with those challenging Harvard’s policies.) I’m not sure, though, that will translate into approving of governmental targeting of Harvard and other Ivies. It’ll be interesting, especially alongside the administration thumbing its nose at the federal judiciary.
I gather that some of those more at risk of having funding removed for not complying with these authoritarian diktats refer to it as "the Gulf".
Bizarre tangent - in the navy we frequently (though not in official publications) referred to the Persian Gulf, even though - or perhaps because - generations of sailors had mostly been there to keep an eye on Iran.
Which is taking a side on nomenclature, but not for the reasons the ‘winner’ would appreciate I guess. Not that it was calculated.
Then it became the NAG (Northern Arabian Gulf) as the focus switched to Iraq.
Wait, it’s not the Persian Gulf anymore?
For about the last 60 yeats.
OMG all this time I just assumed it was the Persian Gulf because that’s what I heard it called back then. If I had heard of the Arabian Gulf, which I probably did at some point, I would’ve assumed it was a different gulf.
(When I was very young, I thought that there were two states, one called Ar-kan-zuz and the other called Ar-kan-saw, because I saw the name Arkansas and heard the name Ar-kan-saw, and just assumed that they were two different places.)
(I also vaguely wondered about whether going “up north” might suggest that there was an actual upward movement, maybe an incline—again, I was very young…)
Trump. Wants to revoke Harvard s. Tax exempt status which is next to impossible since educational institutions have long had exemption. The only school that has lost federal tax exemption is Bob Jones University for racial discrimination. While Trump would argue Harvard DEI statement is reversed discrimination Harvard would argue it is a first amendment issue as well as a civil rights violation. It could be held up in the courts for a very long time considering how many justices come through Harvard
That's an interesting take on the relationship between conspiracy theories and anti-intellectualism. The conspiracy theorists I come across are all anti-intellectual, essentially thinking their 20 minutes watching some grifter's YouTube video is better than the years getting PhDs that actual experts have - from Flat Earthers through Moon Landing Deniers to Creationists and Climate Change Deniers.
I do not positively correlate critical thinking with being accused of being a conspiracy theorist. Rather the opposite.
Well and you can see the success of such a label in marginalizing anybody who "thinks differently". Because people such as you describe actually exist, and because they are so easily derided, the label, once it's applied, sticks like glue.
A healthy level of skepticism never hurts, especially when there is a LOT of money involved in the narrative being promoted. It's a logical fallacy to think that just because someone is an expert or a scientist that they can't have an agenda or that their profession or discipline automatically makes them ethical people.
"Cui bono" is my default position.
AFF
I too remember anti-intellectualism since the 80s. My mother was a college professor until she retired. I got to hear the snide comments about intellectuals, said to me because it was a small town and everyone knew who my mom was. I remember the church where quite a few people figured it was religion or education. I associate a lot of sort of thinking with Reaganite Republicans. But those anti-intellectuals are the same people who would put out the conspiracy theories in my experience.
Could you describe some of the narratives you think are falsely promoted by scientists for ulterior motives, the going against of which would have you labelled a 'conspiracy theorist'?
But yes, the policing of the thoughts of Americans is in full effect with this Administration, and what they haven't already been indoctrinating from younger levels they'll abuse, criminalize, and attempt to punish at the upper levels.
I majored in philosophy with Reasoning and Critical Thinking I and II being required courses. Basically they were all about being able to spot all types of logical fallacies and being able to construct logically sound lines of reasoning.
Whenever I had questions about some aspect of the news of the day I was always told "You think too hard".
I believe there is a strain of anti intellectualism that preys deliberately on people's credulity, and their inability to spot a fallacy when they see it. Such people as you describe I regard more as victims than perpetrators of obfuscation. The fact that Reasoning and Critical Thinking is not part of the core curriculum in first year secondary school, and is only considered an obscure elective in most post secondary institutions makes me wonder who or what benefits from the scarcity or obscurity of this skill set.
But there's also a strain of anti intellectualism that depends on the cooperation of mass agreement, and which doesn't profit from close scrutiny by trained minds.
I think both types exist and authoritarianism can profit from either or both.
AFF
I don't think "falsely promoted" is how I would describe the issue of global warming. There's no arguing that it's happening, but the extent to which this phenomenon is exclusively attributable to human activity on the planet I still see no unanimous consensus on.
That being said, I believe we should reduce our carbon footprint as a matter of good stewardship of the planet's resources, as a matter of efficiency and economy and as a way to make the lives of everyone and evetything better.
If it can be done it should be done for its own sake. If it turns out we are simply exacerbating and accelerating a process that's built into the planet's evolution then we should desist as far as we are able for our own sakes.
AFF
Add to that the seeming raison d'etre of social media, which is to share one's reflexive opinion, and/or validate or critique others' reflexive opinions regardless of consideration, context or experience, let alone expertise.
The fact that atmospheric carbon-14 levels have declined rather dramatically pretty definitively indicates that human activity has caused the increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations that are widely agreed to be the main driver of climate change. That aside, you didn't say what you thought the ulterior motive was for scientists promoting the idea of anthropogenic climate change. I remember when this was first posited it was suggested that scientists wanted that sweet, sweet research grant money that had made them all so unspeakably rich, unlike those simple, impoverished souls at ExxonMobil. Is that your hypothesis as well?
No. And I don't appreciate your tone, so I'll respectfully decline to give you the benefit of any further thought and energy I have given to the topic.
If a single article in a single scientific paper is sufficient for you to declare your mind made up, then I'm not going to argue with you. My mind is still not made up, but for reasons already stated, I think that carbon reduction activity would be a good thing in and of itself.
AFF
Nobody is depending on a single article in a single paper. The link Croesos provided goes to a webpage containing a summary of evidence that has in fact come from any number of studies.
I know Croesos has annoyed you but would you be willing to share with the rest of us what the motivation you ascribe to the scientists who you think are overstating their case?
I didn't say they have any motive and I didn't say that anybody was overstating their case. I wish people would read for comprehension.
I said that just because someone is an expert or a scientist doesn't mean that they can have no other motive, or that they are automatically ethical people.
I didn't say they have one. I said, it's not always the case that they don't.
If the question "cui bono" doesn't immediately yield the answer, it doesn't mean that it should be dismissed at the outset. It should always be kept in mind.
It's perfectly reasonable to keep an open mind about things if one does the digging and doesn't find an immediately satisfactory answer. Sometimes we have to wait decades - like we did when we finally figured out that lead in gasoline and cigarettes were killing us.
Keeping an open mind doesn't mean opposing a point of view. It just means refusing to commit to a position. For reasons stated, I believe it's wisest not to wait decades, but what I think or don't think is unlikely to influence the outcome anyway.
AFF
Snake oil salesmen tell you to trust them. Honest people will happily explain the evidence that supports their position to anyone that is willing to engage constructively with such a discussion. At some point, the willingness of honest people to engage with the same lazy questions from people who don't appear to be engaging in good faith, but are just raising a series of unsupported objections disappears.
In a good faith discussion, if I present to you a set of data that supports hypothesis A, you don't just get to say "I don't like that data - I like hypothesis B" or "that's not enough data - I like hypothesis B". You need to engage with the data, and the reasoning that demonstrates support for hypothesis A. Can you find major flaws in the data (specific deficiencies, not just "I don't like the answer")? Can you find major flaws in the reasoning that argues that the data supports hypothesis A? Can you argue that the data equally supports hypothesis B? Can you suggest measurable tests to distinguish between A and B?
I'm not trying to convince you of anything therefore I have no "oil" to sell.
I think you should take your own advice, though, and answer your own questions for yourself.
AFF
I didn't say there was no evidence. I just think there's a chance that it isn't the only thing that's at play and that it would be a good thing to reduce our carbon footprint because if it can be done it should be.
If in your opinion I'm unreasonable, I can live with that.
AFF
The only conspiracy theorist I've talked to in person at any real length is an extremely smart guy with a PhD in physics. In his case I think the attraction to conspiracy theories comes from paranoia -- another thing Hofstadter wrote about, in The Paranoid Style in American Politics.
ISTM that evidence for anthropogenic climate change is in the same class, and that, drilling down, the case against it is resourced or promoted by similar interests.
The cui bono question seems to me to have a pretty clear answer.
It is possible that there is a natural climate change cycle also having an effect, but ISTM that simply offers an additional reason for reducing the human contribution to the change.
That's a pretty fair comparison. Both are settled science, in terms of the big picture and the general thrust of what happens. In both cases, there are details that we are still learning. Each new detail we learn makes a minor modification to the state of knowledge, but does not change the general conclusions.
I know you didn't ascribe any motives to scientists you accuse of falsifying or over-stating their results. You deliberately ignored that part of @KarlLB's post so I was re-prompting you on that question. If you're theorizing a conspiracy, what are the conspirators conspiring to accomplish?
One of the more interesting analyses of the subject I've come across makes a distinction between "conspiracy theories" and "conspiracism".
Note that this interview was published in October 2019.
So claims that something other than human activity is causing climate change is a conspiracy theory (the warming of the Earth is a fact that some consider requires an explanation other than the current scientific consensus), whereas claims that Haitian immigrants are eating local pets is conspiracism (there is no surge in missing pets that needs to be explained).
That itself may be the reason for the increased intensity of attacks on higher education by the American right. They no longer need to provide alternative explanations to a set of facts, they can simply create their own "facts". That probably greatly simplifies the process.
* It is nearly impossible to get a scientist to make an unqualified or absolute statement about their conclusions, which tends to project a false sense of uncertainty when those statements are read by laypeople.
Then too, there is still the issue of evolution. Not exactly settled theory in American society.
And there are several technological issues. For instance, many people objected to the Covid vaccine because of several issues.
The fascists want to control free speech, and innovation.
In the case of Harvard, the government want to have a say in who is hired be they administrators, faculty, and staff. They want to determine who can be admitted into the student body, and they want to have right of determination of what is taught throughout the curriculum.
Harvard, and other private institutions pride themselves of diversity, equality and inclusion. That is anathema to white christian nationalists.
It is not just about climate change.
The University of Georgia was chartered in 1785, but didn’t began admitting students until 1801. The University of Virginia followed soon after (though by then, of course, we are in the 19th Century).
Thomas Jefferson used his post-presidency to found the University of Virginia. In fact, it's one of the three accomplishments he wanted listed on his tombstone, which reads "here was buried Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of American Independence, of the statute of Virginia for religious freedom and father of the University of Virginia". Note that he doesn't mention having been President of the United States. He apparently ranked that below the other three and not worth mentioning. So yes, Americans have always regarded higher education as a point of prestige, at least in the abstract. In practice their feelings about higher education as it exists are often more ambivalent.