In response to the Trump Administration’s continued attacks on higher education, leaders of some of the most prominent colleges and universities are pushing back—albeit hypocritically. Nearly 500 college presidents and deans signed an open letter from the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, titled “A Call for Constructive Engagement.” Without proper context, the letter is quite reasonable.
These academic leaders argue that America’s colleges, universities, and scholarly societies are now organizing against what they perceive to be government overreach and political interference from the Trump administration. As a result, they collectively “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.”
The letter states that our nation’s institutions of higher learning share a common feature: “the essential freedom to determine, on academic grounds, whom to admit and what is taught, how, and by whom.” The presidents further argue that their schools “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.”
[RELATED: Universities Under Control]
While such claims are noble and virtuous in theory, many schools do not practice these principles. For too long, and particularly since the October 7th Hamas attacks on Israel, many institutions of higher education have promoted an intellectual monoculture focusing on progressive ideas. These schools have willingly and willfully silenced dissent and criticized those with ideas and identities that have not corresponded to the ideals and values of the left.
By signing this statement, the presidents are deliberately and dishonestly presenting a distorted picture of the nature of our colleges and universities. These executives are speaking out now because the American polity has seen the truth, and the government is intervening, using its funding power to demand change. The college and university presidents have had years to address issues about “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) and bias on their campuses; this pushback and coordination is only happening because the school’s direct financial health is threatened.
Consider three well-known cases where presidents did not promote open inquiry and the pursuit of truth. At Princeton, like so many other schools, the influence of identity politics was so powerful that potential faculty hires and entire streams of inquiry were not possible, and areas of research would not be supported if they did not conform to expected progressive political norms and expectations. City Journal reveals that Princeton’s president, Christopher Eisgruber, “systematically discriminated against supposed ‘oppressors,’ like whites and males” and is “a vengeful administrator who punishes anyone who questions DEI orthodoxy.” The evidence presented is shocking but typical for higher education; an anonymous professor tells the story of his colleague in the sciences that he was informed that “You can’t shortlist this person. We can’t hire a white guy” and also notes that “All the people who’ve been signing these anti-Israel petitions and going to the encampments are being considered for the top administrative positions.” So much for viewpoint diversity and equity at Princeton.
Meanwhile, at Harvard, anti-Semitism is raging, and the administration has sat by allowing life to become untenable for many Jewish and Zionist members of its community. The school recently released its long-awaited report on anti-Semitism, presumably in response to the intense pressure coming in from the Trump Administration. The details from the report are horrifying. One example from the many in the report documents a Jewish student being told that he could not share the story of his “Holocaust-survivor grandfather’s rescue efforts because he helped Jews reach British Mandate Palestine.” He was told by organizers that it was “not tasteful” and “inherently one-sided” because it mentioned Israel. A second example chronicles how many Jewish and Israeli students were habitually told that their presence was offensive. Students “were asked to denounce Israel to be considered ‘one of the good ones’” and these “requests “came from every part of campus, including peers, instructors, and faculty.” Harvard cannot claim that it was unaware of the hostile and dangerous climate that was present on campus; Harvard did not act.
Finally, Sarah Lawrence College (SLC)—where I teach politics—has created an environment so hostile for Jewish and Zionist students that many have had to leave campus and finish their coursework remotely. I, too, have been harassed and my family threatened because I have not joined the anti-Semitic students and faculty on campus in calling Israel a colonial or genocidal nation. While I do not speak or teach about Israel or the Middle East, I have nevertheless been subjected to a cancellation campaign and unending hate, slander, and libel intended to intimidate me, force me off campus, and harm me and my reputation. When a group of students violated the ideals and values of the school and tried to derail student enrollment in my course because, in their words, I am a “proud Zionist who advocates for Israel’s right to self-defense, the president of Sarah Lawrence knowingly turned a blind eye.
[RELATED: UN Rapporteur’s Genocide Gambit at UChicago Forum]
What happened in my class was no secret on campus, and when I directly asked the school’s president to engage with me on this illiberal and anti-intellectual behavior, I was ignored, and the president of SLC effectively endorsed both the message and behavior of the students by keeping completely silent. SLC’s views about diversity and inclusion are hollow. Despite signing on to “A Call for Constructive Engagement” and stating that the school remains “fully committed to living the values and upholding the principles,” the president’s actions when tested demonstrate that there is no intention of following the values the school has signed onto.
The timing of the open letter is remarkable. Once significant federal funding is on the line, colleges and universities signal their commitment to open expression and viewpoint diversity. Yet, for decades, many schools have stayed silent and allowed a toxic political culture to fester among faculty and students. Notably, schools like Stanford, the University of Chicago, Dartmouth, Vanderbilt, Washington University in St. Louis, and Lehigh have not endorsed the letter because their presidents understand that this “call” is nothing more than political theater and they have worked to keep their campuses neutral and focused on merit and opportunity for all.
America’s modern higher education system has long been the envy of the world. The thousands of colleges nationwide have been a powerful engine of innovation and opportunity, teaching young minds worldwide and creating seemingly endless new ideas. But so many of these schools have truly lost their way ignored their values and ideals; when they were unable to course correct themselves after years and warnings, it is appropriate and necessary the government intervene to maintain these critical values and help restore our schools to places of inclusion, innovation, and diversity which is what made them great in our post-war era.
Cover by Jared Gould using image of Princeton University by Ken Lund on Flickr and Grok’s rendition of Trump holding an axe.
