Your Cart is Empty
Brooke Lober, Eli Meyerhoff, and Emily Schneider
Academe Blog
Excerpt: The climate on American university campuses is dangerous. Administrators ban protests for Palestinian rights. Immigration and Customs Enforcement snatches students off the streets. The Trump administration revokes hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for research. And all this is done in the name of protecting Jewish students against a so-called culture of antisemitism.
Last April, Claire Shipman, the current acting president of Columbia University, told a congressional committee the university had a “specific problem . . . rampant antisemitism.” If that claim were true, it would constitute a crisis. But it’s not true. Instead, Trump and the Right are weaponizing false claims of antisemitism to attack pro-Palestinian protesters, and they’re using this lie as a smokescreen for destroying higher education and other public goods.
Shiri Spitz Siddiqi
Free The Inquiry, Heterodox Academy, Substack
Excerpt: Rumors of a “vibe shift” have reverberated throughout the political sphere as commentators attempt to explain why the second Trump administration feels different. The “Great Awokening” of the 2010s and early 2020s, when the political left was culturally (if not always politically) dominant, appears to be winding down.
But the absolute numbers obscure a fascinating hand-off occurring between the political left and right that started around 2020: since then, documented attacks from the left have plummeted, while those from the right have trended upwards – especially since 2023.
L. Rafael Reif
The Atlantic
Excerpt: Whatever halfway measures Congress or the courts may take to stop President Donald Trump’s assault on universities, they will not change the fact that a profound agreement has been broken: Since World War II, the U.S. government has funded basic research at universities, with the understanding that the discoveries and innovations that result would benefit the U.S. economy and military, as well as the health of the nation’s citizens.
There is a way forward… It is based on the premise that, because universities are not the sole nor even the most significant beneficiaries of the scientific research they conduct, they should not be alone in trying to save their R&D operations. And it is focused not on Washington but on the individual states that have relied most on federal research spending.
Erin Shaw
Free The Inquiry, Heterodox Academy, Substack
Excerpt: Although requests for DEI statements in faculty hiring may be well-intentioned, they can actually undermine open inquiry by setting up ideological filters that exclude those who don’t share – or are unwilling to pretend they share – specific political opinions and worldviews.
But how common is the practice of asking for DEI statements in faculty hiring, and what patterns exist among such requests? At the top level, we found that 22.3%, or over one out of every five, of the 10,000 faculty job advertisements analyzed requested some kind of DEI-related material as a part of the application process. In other words, about one out of every five faculty members hired within the last year probably had to espouse a particular set of political views to have a chance of landing the jobs they sought.
