Your Cart is Empty
Emily Chamlee-Wright
Inside Higher Ed
Excerpt: American higher education is on its back foot. As part of the Trump administration’s broader project of regime consolidation, universities are facing new and shockingly direct threats to their independence and academic freedom. And in the past few months, we’ve seen that reality start to sink in.
Sometimes there is no more compromise to be had and the only way to stand on principle is to forthrightly say no. In the process, the academic community can reclaim fundamental values that had been eroding well before the present crisis.
Matan H. Josephy and Laurel M. Shugart
Harvard Crimson
Excerpt: A federal judge extended her halt on Donald Trump’s entry ban on holders of Harvard-sponsored visas until next Monday at a hearing where lawyers for Harvard and the federal government sparred over whether the ban is constitutional.
The extension of the temporary restraining order will keep incoming international students’ authorization to enter the U.S. in place until U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs decides whether to cement the pause in a preliminary injunction. Burroughs said at Monday’s hearing that she will issue an opinion within a week.
Jacob Sullum
Reason Magazine
Excerpt: Mahmoud Khalil, a legal permanent resident who was the first target of President Donald Trump's crusade against foreign students he calls "terrorist sympathizers," could soon be released from custody thanks to a preliminary injunction that a federal judge in New Jersey granted this week. The reasoning behind that injunction underlines the chilling impact of Trump's attempt to treat speech he does not like as a deportable offense.
[U.S. District Judge Michael] Farbiarz stayed his injunction until 9:30 this morning to allow for a government appeal of his decision. That deadline came and went without an appeal. An Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official nevertheless told Khalil's lawyers "the government has no immediate plans to release him," The New York Times reports.
Matthew W. Finkin
Chronicle of Higher Education
Excerpt: An article on threats to academic freedom on college campuses in last week’s New York Times Magazine touched on a running debate between the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). The former has long been the expositor of the meaning of academic freedom; the latter is active in litigating free-speech cases. The quarrel between the two organizations raises some hard questions about the AAUP’s current role.
Robert Shibley
The Eternally Radical Idea
Excerpt: Last month, during the ongoing fight between the Trump Administration and Harvard University over student visas, research funding, anti-Semitism, and seemingly everything else under the sun, Vice President J.D. Vance weighed in on X, suggesting that universities should see Trump’s actions as a “necessary corrective.”
Ignoring legally required due process, as too many of the administration’s attacks on Harvard have done so far, has certainly not been “necessary.” But the underlying problems to which Vance points are real. They have done serious damage to knowledge production in America. And they’re poised to do even more, as they contain within them the seeds of destruction for Harvard — or any other university targeted by the federal government.
Chris Cooper
Inside Higher Ed
Excerpt: It is worth noting that most DEI initiatives and offices on campus offer noncontroversial services like tutoring, mental health counseling and accessibility services like sign language interpreters. But the public and politicians were forming their opinions of DEI based on the voices of those with the megaphones and lucrative book contracts.
Current legislation targeting DEI upholds the most radical media-amplified voices as representative of the whole, even though these voices have been largely unsuccessful on many public campuses. Our university is not Columbia or Harvard, yet it seems as if legislators are attempting to punish our institution for the sins of its private counterparts. But when there are no loud moderate voices, how can we expect the public to see anything other than the extremes?
