Why are other universities silent in condemning Trump’s attacks on Columbia? | Zephyr Teachout

University presidents need to be working together to speak up against Donald Trump. Across the country, higher education is facing a crisis that threatens the entire vision of independence: a direct federal government effort to destroy academic freedom by controlling ideas and acceptable areas of inquiry. University leaders should be standing in solidarity with those who have been attacked to defend academic freedom and free speech. So far, all but five have been silent.

The US president has made no secret of his intent to control what is studied, thought, and debated. His administration sent a letter to Columbia University demanding sweeping changes, including placing the Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African studies department under “academic receivership” for five years, abolishing the university judicial board, and centralizing all disciplinary processes under the office of the president. Such unprecedented intervention is blatantly illegal and a wholesale attack on academic freedom and free speech. On Friday, Columbia capitulated.

It is an embarrassment to Columbia, of course, but the embarrassment is not Columbia’s alone. The use of federal funding threats to control universities should be a five-alarm fire for the thousands of other universities, and yet the response from the majority of academic leadership has been silence.

By my count, five university presidents have publicly condemned Trump. The President of Wesleyan, Michael Roth, has been the first and loudest, clearly expressing the unacceptable nature of Trump’s attack. The presidents of Mount Holyoke, Delta College in Michigan, Trinity Community College in Washington DC, and Princeton have also made clear that what Trump is doing is unacceptable.

The thousands of others who are keeping totally quiet know what is happening, and how serious it is; in a recent survey, 94% said Trump directly threatened academic freedom.

The silence from university presidents is particularly jarring when compared with the swift and seemingly coordinated statements universities have issued on dozens of other issues – from US supreme court decisions to international conflicts to campus protests. Now that it comes to defending their core institutional values against a direct authoritarian attack, their collective voice is crickets.

The reasons are understandable. If any one university speaks out, they are scared Trump would pull funding. The president of that university will have to see the place they love and the people they are responsible for gutted by a $50 or $100 or $400 million cut, either to federal grants or scholarships. What if speaking out will change nothing? Why risk the all-critical research of their science faculty, important scholarships for their students, for a statement that might lead to naught?

This is the grotesque genius of his attack on Columbia, which operated like putting a dead body on a car for all to see – so long as each university president sees their job in isolation, and their possible defiance in isolation, all arrows point towards silence. He wins without even having to fight.

But what if he did have to fight? It is not at all clear that Trump will pull funding. He hasn’t attacked Wesleyan, Princeton, Delta, Liberty. This isn’t an oversight: he wants the ground of the debate to be at Columbia, to be conflated with Gaza-Israel, to be complicated by questions about protests and student discipline and the nature of Ivy League education.

If he takes on the Big 10 schools, or a small liberal arts community college, or a Catholic university like the one at which I teach, or any school where there is no pre-existing major conflict, he will be more cleanly revealed as an anti-speech bully. The university presidents can have litigation counsel at the ready to file for a temporary restraining order if Trump pulls funding because of disliked speech, and they will win these lawsuits. Constitutional law is on the side of protecting academic freedom and political speech.

I don’t want to sugarcoat it: Trump could cause real chaos, significantly hurt programs while the legal fight is going on, and scare off other alumni donors to a school (themselves scared) and if they spoke up alone, it’s possible it wouldn’t matter. I understand why university presidents are so trepidatious – he could truly wreck havoc on the people that they have pledged to care for.

But it is precisely because of this dilemma that each leader is morally required to speak up – and to be prioritizing identifying others who will speak up as well over all else. It is an existential moment: standing by in silence as other universities get humiliated leads to all being humiliated.

While it is far from assured that a single voice will lead to others, courage is courageous, and not only because of its natural infectiousness. The more universities speak up, the more obvious it will become that Trump cannot take on all of them, the weaker he will be, the more he will be revealed as an anti-dissent authoritarian. Trump does care how popular he is, and it matters for his leverage in Congress, too. He ran in part on freeing speech; the more it is clear he is imprisoning it, the worse he’ll do.

This Red Scare will not end with an appeal to decency that is seen around the country on national television. Trump is worse than McCarthy; he is more powerful, more vengeful, and more determined to destroy institutions and bend them into subservience. But it can end with collective bravery. If they can find a way to share methodology for financial aid, they can find a way to share a rebuke to Trump.

To be sure, the reputational power of universities is low, and university presidents have little faith that they have any meaningful political power. Their weak reputations came about in part because of illiberalism in the last 10 years, brought on in part by a rhetoric of student safety trumping free discourse, and in part because of the ungodly cost of tuition. The recent price-fixing lawsuits haven’t helped.

That leads me to wonder whether there might be other reasons university presidents are so quiet; more mundane, human, contextual ones. They tend to be trained in thinking strategically when virtue ethics is what is called for; game theory has a way of demanding data points that no one has. Or perhaps, after making too many statements on too many topics in the 2018-2022 period, presidents may be exhausted and annoyed when they are told that speaking out is a moral imperative. They have been turning towards institutional neutrality in most policy issues, tired of being told that every crisis demands a university president voice – one last call demanding courage can feel like overload, overwrought and irrelevant.

The reason this is different is because the government is attacking free speech and free inquiry itself. The current collective cowardice is self-defeating. Their refusal to stand together now only makes them more vulnerable in the future, and less credible when they say they are privately resisting. How can we trust they aren’t complying in advance, reshaping their curriculum and research dollars to avoid retribution? We can’t.

If university leaders, some of the most privileged people in our society, allow themselves to be bullied and blackmailed, and refuse to coordinate with each other on courage, how do we expect any other institutions – law firms, non-profits, businesses – to stand up?

• Zephyr Teachout is an American attorney, author, political candidate, and professor of law specializing in democracy and antitrust at Fordham University