Outstanding! My comments will be brief because I am an old guy typing (?) on an iPad. I am currently at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Sciences in DC. There is an overwhelming recognition among NAS members of the need for better articulation of the issues that are at stake as political hacks take sledgehammers to a complex, imperfect (i. e., human) system on which much of our success as a society depends. The level of discussion in your post is above anything I have encountered here. I particularly like the scope of your argument. It went beyond the narrow utilitarianism of most defenses of federal support for scientific research. And it went beyond science. We need you! Please keep posting. I will write more when I find a keyboard.
Thanks for your support...in this series we are trying to present the reasons autonomous and self-governed universities matter - but we will also be writing about what responsibilities the privilege of self-governance and autonomy brings to higher education. Your perspectives on these topics are most welcome.
One quick comment/question: The challenge with social sciences, unlike engineering or the natural sciences, is that many findings can be perceived as favoring particular political parties or ideological agendas. In such cases, it may seem that certain ideologies (e.g., the belief that free trade is always beneficial for a country as a whole) are implicitly funded by taxpayer money. How should we navigate these situations?
One solution recently adopted on many campuses is to emphasize the diversity of perspectives—for example, showing that while free trade can be beneficial in some cases, it may not be in others. But this risks drifting into a space where everything is possible and everything is right, potentially undermining the idea of objective analysis or evidence-based conclusions.
I haven’t seen this argument put together so logically, so it is compelling.
1. Of course, if logic and good policy had any place in the current administration, it might be of interest to them. Of course, logic and good policy are not what the current administration wants: it wants destruction. Higher education is just another strategic target for all the reasons highlighted in this piece. I think of Henry the VIII who took down the abbeys.
2. There’s a lot more to this also for higher education. Trump’s MAGA sees nothing in higher education for them, and inequality in the US makes that understandable to me. But the challenge to excellence in higher education runs even deeper than that. In the recent pieces in the NY Times there is a quote that struck me down. “Most of us go to community college. Once in a while someone goes to Fayetteville (the University of Arkansas) but that’s viewed as pretty snooty.” Getting ahead with a great college degree, you would think be important, but if it means leaving your neighborhood, your friends, even your family, then the appeal starts to dim to the less fortunate in a way it shouldn’t. Higher education has promoted this elitism to its own detriment. Think the advertised $100,000 tuition and proudly rejecting as many as possible.
SB1 in Ohio is devastating to Higher Ed for all the reasons outlined in this article. We are about to experience a significant loss of autonomy with SB1 as the sword of Damocles hanging over what we can say and teach in a classroom.
Thanks for sharing your perspectives. Your last point is one that helped motivate us to launch the this Substack. There is so much more to higher education than what is happening to the elite institutions. And, too many headlines focus on those issues without digging into the opportunities higher education provides more broadly. When those who could benefit from a college degree opt out because they don't have clear, factual information on which to make their decision, we have a real problem.
Thanks for your work. I'd be particularly interested in your thoughts on the community college systems in particular. They have massive scale, are place-based, and in a world moving fast toward skills-based lifelong learning, should be well positioned. They have been less targeted by the right-wing opposition to science and autonomy as they don't 'do' research and are less 'captive' to faculty co-governance. But they're under severe economic duress in many places, due to enrollment 'cliffs', declining state funding, declining Pell support, etc. And they continue to be perceived as at the bottom of the food chain , partly due to the ongoing debate between those who feel these systems should be pathways to four year education vs. focus on providing career-enhancing ifelong skills for all learners.
Yes, plenty of activity at the state level Bradley - including our own.
Outstanding! My comments will be brief because I am an old guy typing (?) on an iPad. I am currently at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Sciences in DC. There is an overwhelming recognition among NAS members of the need for better articulation of the issues that are at stake as political hacks take sledgehammers to a complex, imperfect (i. e., human) system on which much of our success as a society depends. The level of discussion in your post is above anything I have encountered here. I particularly like the scope of your argument. It went beyond the narrow utilitarianism of most defenses of federal support for scientific research. And it went beyond science. We need you! Please keep posting. I will write more when I find a keyboard.
Thanks for your support...in this series we are trying to present the reasons autonomous and self-governed universities matter - but we will also be writing about what responsibilities the privilege of self-governance and autonomy brings to higher education. Your perspectives on these topics are most welcome.
Totally agree with all the major points.
One quick comment/question: The challenge with social sciences, unlike engineering or the natural sciences, is that many findings can be perceived as favoring particular political parties or ideological agendas. In such cases, it may seem that certain ideologies (e.g., the belief that free trade is always beneficial for a country as a whole) are implicitly funded by taxpayer money. How should we navigate these situations?
One solution recently adopted on many campuses is to emphasize the diversity of perspectives—for example, showing that while free trade can be beneficial in some cases, it may not be in others. But this risks drifting into a space where everything is possible and everything is right, potentially undermining the idea of objective analysis or evidence-based conclusions.
Thanks Vova. We are going to tackle that exact question next week.
I haven’t seen this argument put together so logically, so it is compelling.
1. Of course, if logic and good policy had any place in the current administration, it might be of interest to them. Of course, logic and good policy are not what the current administration wants: it wants destruction. Higher education is just another strategic target for all the reasons highlighted in this piece. I think of Henry the VIII who took down the abbeys.
2. There’s a lot more to this also for higher education. Trump’s MAGA sees nothing in higher education for them, and inequality in the US makes that understandable to me. But the challenge to excellence in higher education runs even deeper than that. In the recent pieces in the NY Times there is a quote that struck me down. “Most of us go to community college. Once in a while someone goes to Fayetteville (the University of Arkansas) but that’s viewed as pretty snooty.” Getting ahead with a great college degree, you would think be important, but if it means leaving your neighborhood, your friends, even your family, then the appeal starts to dim to the less fortunate in a way it shouldn’t. Higher education has promoted this elitism to its own detriment. Think the advertised $100,000 tuition and proudly rejecting as many as possible.
As always these essays get me thinking.
Good timing for this post w/r/t our state as well, given this move to give Braun control over IU. https://indianacapitalchronicle.com/2025/04/24/quiet-budget-addition-would-give-braun-full-control-over-indiana-university-board-of-trustees/
SB1 in Ohio is devastating to Higher Ed for all the reasons outlined in this article. We are about to experience a significant loss of autonomy with SB1 as the sword of Damocles hanging over what we can say and teach in a classroom.
Thanks for sharing your perspectives. Your last point is one that helped motivate us to launch the this Substack. There is so much more to higher education than what is happening to the elite institutions. And, too many headlines focus on those issues without digging into the opportunities higher education provides more broadly. When those who could benefit from a college degree opt out because they don't have clear, factual information on which to make their decision, we have a real problem.
That map looks more like an argument for why universities have to be ruled by lawful residents of their states, with an iron fist.
Literal flippin’ carpetbagging subverting occupying forces inflicted by corporate research trillions on local taxpaying populations.
t., Ivy League and Big Ten researcher
Thanks for your work. I'd be particularly interested in your thoughts on the community college systems in particular. They have massive scale, are place-based, and in a world moving fast toward skills-based lifelong learning, should be well positioned. They have been less targeted by the right-wing opposition to science and autonomy as they don't 'do' research and are less 'captive' to faculty co-governance. But they're under severe economic duress in many places, due to enrollment 'cliffs', declining state funding, declining Pell support, etc. And they continue to be perceived as at the bottom of the food chain , partly due to the ongoing debate between those who feel these systems should be pathways to four year education vs. focus on providing career-enhancing ifelong skills for all learners.