America’s Creepiest College Presidents

Across the United States, a quiet but unmistakable chill has settled over many college campuses. It isn’t the weather. It’s the behavior of a particular class of leaders—the college presidents whose decisions, priorities, and public personas have begun to feel, for lack of a better word, creepy. Not criminal, necessarily. Not always abusive in the legal sense. Just profoundly unsettling in ways that undermine trust, erode shared governance, and push higher education further into the shadows of authoritarianism and corporate capture.

This piece introduces criteria for what makes a college president “creepy,” highlights examples of the types of leaders who fit the mold, and invites reader feedback to build a more accountable public record.

---

Criteria for a “Creepy” College President

“Creepy” here is not about personality quirks. It’s about behavior, power, and material consequences. Based on the reporting and analysis at HEI, we propose the following criteria:

1. First Amendment Hostility

Presidents who suppress speech, restrict student journalism, punish dissent, or hide behind overbroad “time, place, and manner” rules fall squarely into this category. The creepiness intensifies when universities hire outside PR firms or surveillance contractors to monitor campus critics, including students and faculty.

2. Student Rights Violations

Presidents who treat students as risks rather than people, who hide data on assaults, who enable over-policing by campus security, or who weaponize conduct codes to silence protest movements—from Palestine solidarity groups to climate activists—fit the profile.

3. Civil Rights Erosion

Administrators who undermine Title IX protections, retaliate against whistleblowers, protect abusive coaches, or ignore discrimination complaints are not just negligent—they’re institutionally creepy. Their public statements about “inclusion” often ring hollow when compared with their actions behind closed doors.

4. Worker Rights Suppression

Union busting. Outsourcing. Wage stagnation. Anti-transparency tactics. Presidents who preach community while crushing collective bargaining efforts, freezing staff pay, or firing outspoken employees through “restructuring” deserve a place on any such list.

5. Climate Denial or Delay

Presidents who sign glossy climate pledges yet continue fossil-fuel investments, partner with extractive corporations, or suppress environmental activism on campus epitomize a uniquely twenty-first-century creepiness: a willingness to sacrifice future generations to maintain donor relationships and boardroom comfort.

---

Examples: The Multi-Modal Creep Typology

Rather than name only individuals—something readers can help expand—we outline several recognizable types. These composites reflect the emerging patterns seen across U.S. higher education.

The Surveillance Chancellor

Obsessed with “campus safety,” this president quietly expands the university’s security apparatus: license plate readers at entrances, contracts with predictive-policing vendors, facial recognition “pilots,” and backdoor relationships with state or federal agencies. Their speeches emphasize “community,” but their emails say “monitoring.”

The Union-Busting Visionary

This leader talks the language of innovation and social mobility while hiring anti-union law firms to intimidate graduate workers and dining staff. Their glossy strategic plans promise “belonging,” but their HR memos rewrite job classifications to avoid paying benefits.

The Donor-Driven Speech Regulator

Terrified of upsetting trustees, corporate sponsors, or wealthy alumni, this president cracks down on student protests, bans certain speakers, or manipulates disciplinary procedures to neutralize campus activism. They invoke “civility” while undermining the First Amendment.

The DEI-Washing Chief Executive

This president loves diversity statements—for marketing. Meanwhile, they ignore racial harassment complaints, target outspoken faculty of color, or cut ethnic studies under the guise of “realignment.” Their commitment to equity is perfectly proportional to the next accreditation review.

The Climate Hypocrite

At Earth Day, they pose with solar panels. In the boardroom, they argue that divesting from fossil fuels is “unrealistic.” Student climate groups often face administrative smothering, and sustainability staffers are rotated out when they ask uncomfortable questions.

---

Why “Creepiness” Matters

Creepy leaders normalize:

• an erosion of democratic rights on campus,

• the quiet expansion of surveillance,

• the targeting of vulnerable students and workers, and

• a form of managerial governance that undermines the public purpose of higher education.

Higher education is supposed to be a refuge for inquiry, dissent, creativity, and collective imagination. Presidents who govern through fear—whether subtle or overt—pose a deeper threat than those who merely mismanage budgets. They hollow out the civic core of academic life.

---

A Call for Reader Feedback

HEI is building a more comprehensive and accountable registry of America’s Creepiest College Presidents, and we want your help.

• Who on your campus fits these criteria?

• Which presidents (past or present) deserve examination?

• What specific stories, patterns, or documents should be highlighted?

• What additional criteria should be added for future reporting?

Send your confidential tips, analyses, and suggestions. Together, we can shine light into administrative corners that have remained dark for far too long.

Higher Education Inquirer welcomes further input and encourages readers to share this article with colleagues, student groups, labor organizers, and university newspapers.

Defunded and Targeted: The 2025 Crisis Facing Minority-Serving Institutions

In a move that has rattled institutions, students, and advocates, the U.S. Department of Education under the Trump administration has announced it will eliminate approximately $350 million in discretionary grant funding for dozens of minority-serving institutions (MSIs) nationwide. The cuts affect seven major grant programs that support Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Predominantly Black Institutions, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions, and Asian American, Native American, and Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions.

The administration’s stated rationale is that these programs violate constitutional equal protection principles by limiting eligibility based on race and ethnicity. A Solicitor General determination in July argued that some of these programs run afoul of the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. As a result, the Department of Education says it must terminate these discretionary funds and “reprogram” them into initiatives without race or ethnicity as eligibility criteria.

These grants have been essential for many MSIs: they have financed academic support services, facility improvements, staffing, mentoring and advising programs, and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics pathways aimed at underrepresented students. They have also helped institutions meet accreditation requirements and federal compliance demands. In the California State University system, for instance, 21 of its 22 campuses qualify as Hispanic-Serving Institutions. CSU Chancellor Mildred García has warned that the loss of funding will cause “immediate impact and irreparable harm” across the system, with many of those campuses having Hispanic students constituting nearly half of their enrollment.

Legally, the Department of Justice has declined to defend several of these MSI programs in litigation filed by Tennessee and Students for Fair Admissions. The core legal claim is that race- or ethnicity-based eligibility constitutes an unconstitutional preference not sufficiently justified under strict scrutiny. The administration has portrayed its actions not only as legal necessities but as aligning with broader priorities that avoid what it sees as constitutionally weak race-based criteria.

The consequences are likely to be broad. Without this discretionary funding, many MSIs will struggle to maintain programs focused on student persistence, remedial education, and equity‐oriented innovation. Services and supports for students who already face systemic barriers risk being cut. For students, this could translate into higher dropout rates, longer time to degree, and fewer resources. More broadly, institutions serve as engines of social mobility; removing a key source of institutional support may disproportionately harm communities of color and rural or underserved areas.

These changes arrive amid growing concerns about campus safety and the psychological toll inflicted by fear and disruption. In recent days several Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) have been forced into lockdown or canceled classes following hoax threat calls—“swatting” incidents—that mimic real violence but are ultimately false. Schools including Virginia State University, Hampton University, Alabama State University, Bethune-Cookman University, Spelman College, Morehouse, Clark Atlanta, Southern University & A&M College, and others faced terroristic threat letters or hoax calls that led to shelter-in-place orders, lockdowns, and heightened security measures. Though the FBI confirms that as of now no credible threat has been identified in many cases, the disruption has been real and traumatic for students, faculty, and administrators. These events underscore how fragile promises of safety can be, especially in institutions that already contend with systemic underfunding and inequity.

Administrations of affected universities have responded with caution. Some campuses suspended operations entirely, others canceled classes for multiple days, and many restricted access and tightened identification requirements. There are also broader legal and psychological costs: the stress, fear, and interruption to learning can exacerbate existing inequities in mental health and academic performance.

Even congressionally mandated funding—approximately $132 million that cannot immediately be reprogrammed—is under review for constitutionality. If more funding is cut or reallocated, more programs that target underrepresented populations by race or ethnicity may be dismantled.

Reaction from campus leaders, student advocates, and civil rights organizations has been swift. Many insist that these MSI programs are essential for closing equity gaps and forging institutional capacity that benefits all students. They argue that the cuts and these swatting-style threats combine to send a message: that institutions serving marginalized communities are especially vulnerable, legally and physically. The administration holds that it is compelled by constitutional law to end programs it deems indefensible, and that reprogramming funds to race-neutral programs is the correct path forward.

Looking ahead, legal challenges are almost certain. Questions include: what justifications are required under constitutional scrutiny; whether socioeconomic, geographic, or first-generation status metrics can be substituted for race or ethnicity eligibility; how institutions will respond financially and operationally; and what role Congress might play in defending or restructuring funding mandates. Meanwhile, ensuring physical and psychological safety on campuses—especially HBCUs—will remain a pressing concern in a climate where hoaxes and threats have become disturbingly frequent.

The elimination of $350 million in discretionary grants to minority-serving institutions marks a major shift in federal higher education policy. For MSIs, their students, and the communities they serve, the immediate effects may be devastating. But the broader questions raised—about constitutional limits, equity, race as public policy, and the safety of marginalized communities—are likely to echo well beyond this administration.

---

Sources

• Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, “Trump Administration Cuts $350 Million in Grants to Minority-Serving Colleges,” September 2025.

• AP News, “Historically Black Colleges Issue Lockdown Orders, Cancel Classes After Receiving Threats,” September 2025. apnews.com

• Washington Post, “Multiple Historically Black Colleges Launch Lockdowns After ‘Terroristic’ Threat,” September 2025. washingtonpost.com

• Axios, “’Terroristic threats’ disrupt life at HBCUs across the U.S.” axios.com

• People Magazine, “Threats Force Multiple HBCUs Across Southern U.S. to Lock Down, Cancel Classes.” people.com

• The Guardian, “Black students and colleges across US targeted with racist threats day after Charlie Kirk killing.” theguardian.com

Judge Rules on Harvard Case: When We Fight, WE WIN! (Todd Wolfson, AAUP)

Last night, we got great news: We WON our lawsuit challenging the Trump’s administration’s attempt to dismantle research and critical thought at Harvard University.  

Please join us in our fight for higher education and research.

A federal judge agreed with us and with the Harvard administration that the Trump administration violated the Constitution, the Civil Rights Act, and the Administrative Procedures Act by demanding that Harvard restrict speech and restructure core operations or else face the cancellation of billions in federal funding for the university and its affiliated hospital.

In her ruling, US District Judge Allison Burroughs found that the administration’s actions, which included freezing and canceling more than $2 billion in research grants, violated the First Amendment rights of Harvard and of Harvard’s faculty and amounted to “retaliation, unconstitutional conditions, and unconstitutional coercion.” Her ruling vacates the government’s funding freeze and permanently blocks it from using similar reasoning to deny grants to Harvard in the future.

In April, the national AAUP and our Harvard chapter, alongside the United Auto Workers, filed the lawsuit seeking to stop the Trump administration’s attack on Harvard. Pressured by our filing, the Harvard administration subsequently filed suit and the cases were linked.

Many of Judge Burroughs’s findings responded primarily to the claims of AAUP members, particularly about harms to research, First Amendment violations, and attacks on academic freedom.

This is a huge win not just for AAUP members at Harvard but for all of American higher education, for science, and for free and critical thought in this country. The Trump administration’s attempts to restrict speech and cripple lifesaving research are widespread, affecting every state and type of institution in the nation. As this victory shows, Trump’s war on higher education is unconstitutional. We will continue to stand up and fight back against these attempts to dismantle our universities, terrify students and faculty, and punish hospitals and scientific research for not bowing to authoritarianism. And we will win.

We could not have done it without the leadership, hard work, and testimony of AAUP members. We need you in this fight with us too. Please join now.

In solidarity,

Todd Wolfson, AAUP President

University of Kentucky Athlete Arrested After Infant Found Dead in Closet – Amid Kentucky’s Near-Total Abortion Ban

Lexington, KY (September 3, 2025) — A University of Kentucky student and athlete, 21-year-old Laken Ashlee Snelling—a senior member of the UK STUNT cheer team—has been arrested and charged in connection with the death of her newborn, authorities say.

Allegations and Legal Proceedings

Lexington police were called to a Park Avenue residence on August 27 after they discovered the unresponsive body of an infant hidden in a closet, wrapped in a towel inside a black trash bag. Snelling admitted to giving birth and attempting to conceal both the infant and evidence of the birth, according to arrest documents.

Snelling faces three Class D felony charges:

• Concealing the birth of an infant

• Tampering with physical evidence

• Abuse of a corpse

Each charge carries potential penalties of 1 to 5 years in prison and fines up to $10,000.

At her first court appearance on September 2, Snelling pleaded not guilty and was released on a $100,000 bond, with the court ordering her to live under house arrest at her parents’ home in Tennessee. Her next hearing is scheduled for September 26.

A preliminary autopsy by the Fayette County Coroner’s Office revealed that the infant was a boy, but the cause of death remains inconclusive. Officials confirmed that a thorough death investigation is ongoing.

Context: Kentucky’s Near-Total Abortion Ban

Kentucky currently enforces one of the nation’s most restrictive abortion laws. Since August 1, 2022, the state’s trigger law has rendered abortion completely illegal, except when necessary to prevent the pregnant individual’s death or permanent impairment of a major, life-sustaining bodily function. No exceptions are made for rape, incest, or fetal abnormalities.

Attempts to challenge the ban have largely failed. A 2024 lawsuit disputing the near-total prohibition was voluntarily dismissed earlier this year, and the law remains firmly in place. Additionally, a constitutional amendment that would have explicitly declared that Kentucky's state constitution does not protect abortion rights was rejected by voters in November 2022.

Public Reaction and Additional Details

Snelling, originally from White Pine, Tennessee, had built a public persona that included cheerleading and pageant appearances. Months earlier, she had posted on TikTok expressing a desire for motherhood—listing “having babies” among her life goals. Viral maternity-style photos—later removed from her social media—have intensified public scrutiny.

A Broader National Context

Snelling’s case arises within a wider national conversation about the legal and societal implications of criminal investigations following pregnancy outcomes. Since the repeal of federal protections for abortion rights, concerns have grown that miscarriages, stillbirths, or even self-managed abortions may now be subject to legal scrutiny—raising fears about reproductive autonomy and medical privacy.

---

Sources

• The Guardian: University of Kentucky athlete charged after dead infant found hidden in closet (Sept. 2, 2025)

• People: Univ. of Kentucky STUNT Team Member Arrested After Allegedly Hiding Dead Newborn in Her Closet (Sept. 2, 2025)

• TurnTo10: University of Kentucky athlete pleads not guilty to hiding newborn in closet (Sept. 2, 2025)

• WWNYTV: College student pleads not guilty after dead infant found in closet (Sept. 3, 2025)

• The Sun (UK): Laken Snelling cheerleader baby case (Sept. 2, 2025)

• WKYT: Fayette County coroner releases autopsy results after infant found in closet (Sept. 3, 2025)

• AP News: Kentucky abortion law lawsuit dismissed (2024)

• Wikipedia: Abortion in Kentucky (updated 2025); 2022 Kentucky Amendment 2

• New York Post: Kentucky cheerleader who hid newborn had listed “having babies” as life goal (Sept. 2, 2025)

• Fox News: Kentucky athlete once posted about wanting babies (Sept. 2, 2025)

• India Times: Viral maternity photos of Kentucky student after newborn death case (Sept. 2, 2025)

• Vox: How abortion bans create confusion and surveillance risks (2025)

Silencing Higher Education: Trump’s War on Discourse About Genocide in Palestine

Academic institutions have long served as crucibles of free thought and protest. Yet under President Trump’s second term, universities have become battlegrounds in a sweeping campaign that conflates advocacy around the genocide in Gaza with antisemitism—and weaponizes Title VI and Title IX to stifle dissent. This article outlines the administration’s tactics, war crimes ramifications, and the universities ensnared so far.

---

War Crimes at Issue: Gaza Protests and U.S. Reaction

The conflict in Gaza has seen mounting allegations of genocide against Israel—claims underscored by protests on dozens of U.S. campuses. In response, the Trump administration has launched a social media “catch-and-revoke” system that uses AI to flag pro-Palestinian speech, leading to visa revocations and deportations—even targeting legal residents and green-card holders. Over 1,000 visa revocations were reported by mid-April 2025, rising to nearly 2,000 by mid-May—many later overturned by courts.

Activists such as Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University legal resident arrested during a protest, and Mohsen Mahdawi, detained during a citizenship interview, have been caught up in these actions—both cases widely criticized for infringing First Amendment rights. These responses reflect a concerted effort to equate peaceful protest with national-security threats under the guise of combating antisemitism.

---

Title VI Enforcement: Chilling Academic Freedom

Under a January 29, 2025 Executive Order, Trump directed federal agencies to squash antisemitism—including speech critical of Israel—by enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act against universities.

In March 2025, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights sent letters to 60 universities, warning of enforcement investigations over alleged antisemitism during pro-Gaza protests. This has had an unmistakable chilling effect on faculty, students, and campus activism.

---

Institutions Targeted and Financial Punishments

The administration’s pressure tactics have taken several forms.

Columbia University saw $400 million in federal grants and contracts canceled, tied to agencies including the Departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services. The university received an ultimatum to change discipline policies, suspend or expel protestors, ban masks, empower security with arrest authority, and restructure certain academic departments by March 20—under threat of permanent funding loss. Columbia ultimately settled for $200 million and restored funding.

George Washington University was accused by the DOJ of being “deliberately indifferent” to antisemitic harassment during spring 2024 protests, especially affecting Jewish, American-Israeli, and Israeli students and faculty, and was given a deadline of August 22 to take corrective action.

UCLA recently had $584 million in federal funding suspended over similar antisemitism-related accusations and affirmative action concerns.

Harvard University is in settlement talks over nearly $500 million in frozen federal funding, negotiating compliance with federal guidelines in exchange for restoring money. Harvard also faces a separate Title VI/IX complaint over $49 million in DEI grants, with claims of race- and sex-based discrimination.

Other institutions under investigation include Johns Hopkins, NYU, Northwestern, UC Berkeley, University of Minnesota, and USC.

---

Legal Backlash and Academic Resistance

Universities and academic organizations have begun to push back.

The AAUP has filed suit against Trump’s executive orders on DEI, calling them vague, overreaching, and chilling to speech. Some institutions, including Harvard, have resisted enforcement efforts, defending academic freedom and constitutional rights—even as they weigh risks to federal funding.

Legal experts argue that Title VI enforcement in this context may be unconstitutional if motivated by ideological suppression rather than actual antisemitism.

---

The Battle for Free Speech and Human Rights

Trump’s strategy effectively conjoins criticism of genocide and advocacy for Palestinian rights with civil rights violations—casting a chilling effect across campuses nationwide. The consequences are profound.

Academic autonomy is undermined when universities must trade institutional integrity for compliance with politically driven mandates. Student activism, especially from international and Palestinian voices, faces existential threats via visa policies and deportation tactics. Human rights accountability is sidelined when federal power is used to muzzle discourse about atrocities abroad.

---

Sources:

• Harvard, Trump Administration Near Deal for $500 Million Settlement

• Trump administration says George Washington University violated law over Jewish students, faculty

• Why Harvard Decided to Challenge Donald Trump

• Columbia University Faces Ultimatum from Trump Administration

• UCLA Funding Suspended by Trump Administration

Santa Ono: Take the Money and Run

In a stunning development that has sent ripples through the world of higher education, University of Michigan President Santa J. Ono announced he will step down this summer to take the helm at the University of Florida. The announcement comes just seven months after he signed a lucrative contract extension at U-M—one that brought his salary to $1.3 million per year and was among the most generous in the nation.

Ono’s exit will mark the shortest presidential tenure in University of Michigan history—just two and a half years. And it’s happening at a moment of profound political and institutional tension, with many in Ann Arbor voicing frustration at what they perceive as the university's muted resistance to a suite of controversial measures emanating from the Trump administration.

From Rising Star to Abrupt Exit

When Santa Ono arrived in Ann Arbor in late 2022, he brought with him a sterling academic pedigree and a reputation as a charismatic, student-focused leader. His hiring was seen as a stabilizing move after years of controversy surrounding his predecessor.

But beneath the surface, Ono’s relationship with the university community frayed. Faculty members and students alike cite his increasing absence from public discourse in 2024, particularly as the federal government—under a resurgent Trump administration—moved to slash research funding, roll back diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, and scrutinize university partnerships, including U-M’s involvement with The PhD Project, which aims to diversify business faculty.

“He’s been more or less invisible particularly this year,” said Faculty Senate Chair Derek Peterson. “What we need is a fighter, not a conformer.”

The Florida Move

Ono’s move to the University of Florida has sparked speculation about his motivations. On paper, Michigan is more prestigious, enjoys greater autonomy thanks to a unique governance structure, and has a massive $19.2 billion endowment. Florida, by contrast, is under the thumb of a politically active governor and a centralized board that has exerted pressure on universities to conform to ideological mandates.

Yet the financial allure may have been too great to ignore: reports suggest Florida’s presidential compensation could total $3 million annually—more than double Ono’s current pay.

Brendan Cantwell, a professor of higher education policy at Michigan State University, noted the irony: “He’s leaving a more prestigious, more autonomous institution. That says a lot about the pressures he faced.”

A State Under Fire: The Regressive Politics of Higher Education in Florida

For those familiar with the political climate in Florida, Ono’s move to the University of Florida is far from surprising. Over the past few years, Florida has become a hotbed for right-wing political maneuvering in higher education, with Governor Ron DeSantis spearheading efforts to reshape universities in line with his conservative agenda.

From banning certain books to defunding DEI programs and trying to control academic curriculum, DeSantis has made it clear that higher education in Florida is now a battleground for ideological warfare. His administration has launched aggressive campaigns against what he describes as “woke” politics in academia, citing the need to root out “liberal indoctrination” and promote “freedom” from progressive influences.

Florida’s approach to higher education has included an unprecedented wave of budget cuts to diversity programs, particularly those aimed at supporting historically underrepresented students. The state’s universities are now grappling with the loss of funding for programs designed to increase access for Black, Latino, and Indigenous students. DeSantis has also pushed for "anti-woke" laws that bar universities from offering certain courses or diversity-related initiatives. This is not only affecting the curriculum, but also the very way in which faculty and staff are hired and evaluated.

In 2023, the University of Florida eliminated many of its DEI programs under pressure from the state. The state’s Board of Governors is now actively involved in scrutinizing university curriculums, and its influence extends even to hiring practices, where faculty members are increasingly expected to align with a more conservative view of American history and culture. These moves have drawn ire from academics nationwide, who argue that Florida’s political leadership is attempting to stifle intellectual freedom and academic independence.

Moreover, Florida’s universities face a severe erosion of academic freedom, as DeSantis has sought to impose strict guidelines on speech and research. This includes revising what can and cannot be taught in classrooms and restricting discussions around race, gender, and political identity. The state's newly imposed curriculum laws have made it more difficult for universities to engage in meaningful discourse about topics such as climate change, systemic racism, and gender equality.

For Ono, stepping into this highly charged, politicized environment will represent a dramatic shift from his more moderate, research-focused tenure at Michigan. His leadership will likely be tested not just by university-level challenges but also by the state's political apparatus, which has shown a willingness to intervene in nearly every facet of higher education.

Institutional Challenges Ahead

Ono’s departure leaves U-M with significant challenges. The Board of Regents announced that he will remain in Ann Arbor until an interim president is named—a process that may take weeks. But finding a long-term leader capable of navigating the rapidly shifting higher education landscape could take much longer.

The next president will have to address:

• Federal Research Cuts: The loss of federal contracts—particularly from agencies like the National Institutes of Health—has cost Michigan and its peer institutions hundreds of millions of dollars. A $15 million Social Security study was among the casualties. U-M is using endowment funds to plug gaps, but that is not a sustainable strategy.

• DEI Backlash and Retrenchment: The university recently shuttered two DEI offices and scaled back programming, citing political and legal risks. While Ono promised to bolster financial aid and mental health support, many faculty and students felt betrayed by the move.

• Campus Unrest and Free Speech: Protests over the Gaza war led to harsh disciplinary action against student groups, including the suspension of Students Allied for Freedom and Equality (SAFE). Critics say the campus has become increasingly authoritarian, and several lawsuits have been filed by terminated employees alleging First Amendment violations.

• Board Relations and Governance: U-M’s elected Board of Regents is ideologically divided. While five Democratic regents penned a passionate op-ed in defense of academic independence, the board’s stance on DEI and other political flashpoints appears fractured.

A Bigger Crisis in Public Higher Ed?

Beyond the immediate concerns, the university’s upheaval reflects deeper anxieties about the future of public higher education in America. Declining public trust, rising tuition, and the politicization of universities—especially around issues of race, gender, and free speech—have created an atmosphere of volatility.

While the University of Michigan continues to see strong application numbers, including from international students, enrollment of in-state high school graduates is dropping. The university’s Go Blue Guarantee, which offers free tuition to families earning under $125,000, is a step toward addressing affordability concerns. But will it be enough?

Sandy Baruah of the Detroit Regional Chamber sees a broader mission: “Our research universities all have a responsibility to make the case for higher education. The value of higher ed is critical to the state of Michigan.”

What’s Next?

The Faculty Senate has passed resolutions urging the university to join a “mutual defense pact” with other Big Ten schools to resist political interference and defend academic freedom. But U-M is not obligated to act on those resolutions.

Interim leadership will be announced soon, and the search for a permanent successor will follow. Whoever takes the reins next will need to be a deft political operator—someone capable of rebuilding trust internally while weathering mounting external threats.

In the words of Cantwell: “Whoever they hire has to be prepared to be under intense scrutiny—locally, federally, ideologically. The next leader of Michigan must have both a spine and a strategy.”

As the University of Michigan enters this uncertain chapter, one thing is clear: the battle over the soul of public higher education is far from over.

A LETTER TO HARVARD LAW SCHOOL STUDENTS (Harvard Law School Faculty)

From the Harvard Crimson:

Roughly 70 percent of Harvard Law School’s professors accused the federal government of exacting retribution on lawyers and law firms for representing clients and causes opposed by President Donald Trump in a Saturday night letter to the school’s student body.

The letter, which was signed by 82 of the school’s 118 active professors as of this article’s publication, described Trump’s threats as a danger to the rule of law. It condemned the government for intimidating individuals based on their past public statements and threatening international students with deportation over “lawful speech and political activism.”

Nine emeritus professors also joined the statement.

March 29, 2025 

To our students: 
We are privileged to teach and learn the law with you. We write to you today—in our 
individual capacities—because we believe that American legal precepts and the institutions 
designed to uphold them are being severely tested, and many of you have expressed to us your 
concerns and fears about the present moment. 

Each of us brings different, sometimes irreconcilable, perspectives to what the law is and should 
be. Diverse viewpoints are a credit to our school. But we share, and take seriously, a 
commitment to the rule of law: for people to be equal before it, and for its administration to 
be impartial. That commitment is foundational to the whole legal profession, and to the special 
role that lawyers play in our society. As the Model Rules of Professional Conduct provide: “A 
lawyer is … an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for 
the quality of justice.” 

The rule of law is imperiled when government leaders: 
• single out lawyers and law firms for retribution based on their lawful and ethical 
representation of clients disfavored by the government, undermining the Sixth 
Amendment; 
• threaten law firms and legal clinics for their lawyers’ pro bono work or prior 
government service; 
• relent on those arbitrary threats based on public acts of submission and outlays of funds 
for favored causes; and 
• punish people for lawfully speaking out on matters of public concern. 

While reasonable people can disagree about the characterization of particular incidents, we are 
all acutely concerned that severe challenges to the rule of law are taking place, and we strongly 
condemn any effort to undermine the basic norms we have described. 

On our own campus and at many other universities, international students have reported fear 
of imprisonment or deportation for lawful speech and political activism. Whatever we might 
each think about particular conduct under particular facts, we share a conviction that our 
Constitution, including its First Amendment, was designed to make dissent and debate 
possible without fear of government punishment. Neither a law school nor a society can 
properly function amidst such fear. 

We reaffirm our commitment to the rule of law and to our roles in teaching and upholding 
the precepts of a fair and impartial legal system. 

Trump's Growing Crackdown of Dissenters on Campus

In recent weeks, a growing number of international students and green card holders at prestigious universities, including Cornell, Columbia, Georgetown, and Tufts, have been arrested and detained by federal immigration authorities. These actions appear to be part of a broader crackdown on pro-Palestinian activism within U.S. academic institutions and against dissent in general.  

Tufts University

On March 26, 2025, Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish doctoral student at Tufts University, was detained by federal agents who revoked her student visa. Ozturk had co-authored an op-ed in the Tufts student newspaper condemning investments in companies linked to Israel and referring to the "Palestinian genocide" in Gaza. Her detention occurred as she was heading to an iftar dinner during Ramadan.

Reuters

Columbia University

Earlier this month, Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident and recent graduate of Columbia University, was arrested in his university housing. Khalil's participation in pro-Palestinian protests led to allegations of supporting Hamas, resulting in the revocation of his green card. He is currently detained while challenging the deportation order.

AP News

Subsequently, Yunseo Chung, a 21-year-old Columbia junior from South Korea holding a green card, was targeted for deportation due to her involvement in similar protests. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order preventing her detention while she contests the deportation order.

Politico

Georgetown University

Badar Khan Suri, a Georgetown University postdoctoral fellow on a student visa, was detained on March 17, 2025, under accusations of spreading Hamas propaganda and promoting antisemitism. His attorney disputes these claims, suggesting that Suri is being targeted because of his Palestinian wife's heritage and their perceived opposition to U.S. foreign policy.

The Verge

Cornell University

Momodou Taal, a Cornell graduate student with dual British and Gambian citizenship, was instructed to surrender to ICE authorities on March 22, 2025. Taal's legal team preemptively filed a lawsuit challenging the deportation order, citing concerns over potential surveillance and targeting due to his activism.

Politico

These incidents have raised significant concerns among civil rights organizations, university officials, and international communities. Critics argue that the Trump administration's actions infringe upon First Amendment rights and target individuals based on their political views. In response, legal challenges are underway, with courts issuing orders to halt certain deportations and detentions.

As this situation develops, universities and advocacy groups continue to monitor and respond to the evolving landscape of immigration enforcement affecting international students and green card holders across the nation.

We’re taking it to the courts and the streets--and we need you (Todd Wolfson, AAUP)

The Trump administration’s assaults on education, science, campuses, and communities across the United States are unprecedented, and require an unprecedented response. We are fighting with you and for you in the streets, on campus, and in the courts.

While there are some exceptions, the truth is clear: We cannot count on college administrations to take a stand and take the lead in defending our campuses and communities. Instead, faculty and unions are leading the fight and we need you in it.

This week alone, the AAUP, working in partnership with our chapters, the AFT, and other allies, filed three lawsuits against the Trump administration.

—We sued the administration for its illegal revocation of $400 million in federal funding from Columbia University. We believe that the funding cuts and related demands, which undermine critical scientific and medical and suppress speech, are an unlawful attack on the First Amendment and academic freedom and must be stopped.

—We filed suit to protect free speech rights across colleges and universities against the chilling effect of the Trump administration’s immigration deportation policies.

—We filed a legal action to stop the dismantling of the Department of Education and mass firings that will decimate the crucial services that benefit every person residing in the US.

We cannot win these lawsuits, protect academic freedom, and defend higher education without you. AAUP members have stepped up to provide information and testimony, and they have put themselves on the line as public participants in these legal cases.

We need you with us—please join now. If you're not an active or retired teacher, researcher, graduate student, or similar, you can join as a supporter--just choose "associate member" as you go through the join process.

In solidarity,
Todd Wolfson, AAUP President

P.S.—We need you in the streets, too! On April 8, please join us in a National Day of Action to stand up for education and research.

FACULTY UNIONS SUE TRUMP ADMIN: NO HALTING SCIENCE RESEARCH TO SUPPRESS SPEECH (American Federation of Teachers)

The faculty and national labor unions allege that the Trump administration improperly canceled Columbia University’s federal funding to compel speech restrictions on campus, damaging both vital scientific research and academic discourse

NEW YORK– The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the AFT today sued the Trump administration on behalf of their members for unlawfully cutting off $400 million in federal funding for crucial public health research to force Columbia University to surrender its academic independence. While the Trump administration has been slashing funding since its first days in office, this move represents a stunning new tactic: using cuts as a cudgel to coerce a private institution to adopt restrictive speech codes and allow government control over teaching and learning.

The plaintiffs, who represent members of Columbia University faculty in both the humanities and sciences, allege that this coercive tactic not only undermines academic independence, but stops vital scientific research that contributes to the health and prosperity of all Americans. The terminated grants supported research on urgent issues, including Alzheimer’s disease prevention, fetal health in pregnant women, and cancer research.

The Trump administration’s unprecedented demands, and threats of similar actions against 60 universities, have created instability and a deep chilling effect on college campuses across the country.  Although the administration claims to be acting to combat antisemitism under its authority to prevent discrimination, it has completely disregarded the requirements of Title VI, the statute that provides it with that authority–requirements that exist to prevent the government from exercising too much unfettered control over funding recipients. According to the complaint, the cancellation of federal funds also violates the First Amendment, the separation of powers, and other constitutional provisions.

“The Trump administration’s threats and coercion at Columbia are part of a clear authoritarian playbook meant to crush academic freedom and critical research in American higher education. Faculty, students, and the American public will not stand for it. The repercussions extend far beyond the walls of the academy. Our constitutional rights, and the opportunity for our children and grandchildren to live in a democracy are on the line,” said Todd Wolfson, president of the AAUP.

“President Trump has taken a hatchet to American ingenuity, imagination and invention at Columbia to attack academic freedom and force compliance with his political views,” said AFT President Randi Weingarten. “Let’s be clear: the administration should tackle legitimate issues of discrimination. But this modern-day McCarthyism is not just an illegal attack on our nation’s deeply held free speech and due process rights, it creates a chilling effect that hinders the pursuit of knowledge—the core purpose of our colleges and universities. Today, we reject this bullying and resolve to challenge the administration’s edicts until they are rescinded.”

“We’re seeing university leadership across the country failing to take any action to counter the Trump administration’s unlawful assault on academic freedom,” said Reinhold Martin, president of Columbia-AAUP and professor of architecture. “As faculty, we don’t have the luxury of inaction. The integrity of civic discourse and the freedoms that form the basis of a democratic society are under attack. We have to stand up.”

The complaint alleges that the Trump administration’s broad punitive tactics are indicative of an attempt to consolidate power over higher education broadly. According to the complaint, the administration is simultaneously threatening other universities with similar punishment in order to chill dissent on specific topics and speech with which the administration disagrees. Trump administration officials have spoken publicly about their plans to “bankrupt these universities” if they don’t “play ball.”

Universities have historically been engines of innovation in critical fields like technology, national security, and medical treatments. Cuts to that research will ultimately harm the health, prosperity and security of all Americans.

“Columbia is the testing ground for the Trump administration’s tactic to force universities to yield to its control,” said Orion Danjuma, counsel at Protect Democracy. “We are bringing this lawsuit to protect higher education from unlawful government censorship and political repression.”

The lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York and names as defendants the government agencies that cut Columbia’s funding on March 7 and signed the March 13 letter to Columbia laying out the government's demands required to restore the funding, including the Department of Justice, Department of Education, Health and Human Services and General Services Administration. The plaintiffs are represented by Protect Democracy and Altshuler Berzon LLP.

The full complaint can be read here.

U.S. Law Schools: Perpetuating Inequality and Injustice, Serving the Billionaire Class

As the nation grapples with profound social and economic inequities, U.S. law schools have become a critical yet overlooked institution in perpetuating these disparities. From shaping the legal minds that go on to influence policy to training future attorneys who occupy the nation's corridors of power, law schools are playing an outsized role in entrenching systems of privilege, rather than dismantling them.

One of the most glaring manifestations of this failure is the Trump-era Supreme Court, whose composition has shifted dramatically due to the influence of elite law schools. Justices such as Brett Kavanaugh (Yale Law), Neil Gorsuch (Harvard Law), and Amy Coney Barrett (Notre Dame Law) have reshaped the Court in the image of conservative ideologies. These justices, primarily from elite institutions, have consistently sided with corporate interests over public welfare. Their rulings on critical issues like voting rights (Shelby County v. Holder, 2013), abortion access (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 2022), and corporate regulation (South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 2018) have had profound consequences, amplifying inequalities and reducing access to justice for marginalized communities. The legal minds trained in these prestigious law schools have moved away from serving the public, instead reinforcing the status quo and further consolidating power in the hands of the wealthy elite.

This trend is compounded by the overwhelming concentration of law school graduates in a handful of sectors, particularly Washington, D.C., and on Wall Street. A report from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP) reveals that nearly 70% of graduates from top law schools—such as Harvard, Yale, and Columbia—secure positions in large corporate law firms or government roles. Meanwhile, those who enter public service or work in underfunded legal fields such as public defense face a starkly different reality. According to the American Bar Association (ABA), the average starting salary for a public defender in 2020 was around $50,000, compared to $190,000 in major corporate law firms. This disparity highlights the economic realities facing graduates who pursue careers in public interest law.

Law schools exacerbate these inequities through their admissions processes, which heavily favor students from affluent backgrounds. A 2019 study by the Equality of Opportunity Project found that 70% of students attending Harvard Law, Yale Law, and other Ivy League law schools come from families in the top 20% income bracket, while less than 5% come from the bottom 20%. This financial divide is perpetuated by high tuition costs—Harvard Law's tuition and fees for the 2024 academic year exceed $70,000 annually—making it inaccessible to many who might otherwise have the talent and potential to succeed in law.

Furthermore, law schools’ connections with corporate sponsors and wealthy alumni networks often shape the curriculum and career pathways offered to students. As a result, legal education has become increasingly oriented toward corporate law, perpetuating a system that values prestige and financial gain over social justice. A 2021 report from the American Bar Foundation indicated that nearly half of law school graduates work in the private sector within the first ten years of their careers, most of them in high-paying corporate firms or lobbying groups, which further concentrates legal power in the hands of the elite.

The oversupply of lawyers entering corporate sectors—many of whom attend the nation’s top law schools—has created a system where elite law firms and government agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Justice and major regulatory bodies, dominate legal decision-making. This trend is also visible in the disproportionate representation of law school graduates in Washington, D.C., where they shape policy in ways that benefit large corporations and financial institutions, while leaving the needs of the general public unmet.

A central aspect of the legal system that perpetuates inequality is the way the billionaire class profits from the injustice system itself. Wealthy individuals and corporate entities have found ways to exploit the legal system to their advantage, contributing to the concentration of wealth and power. Many billionaires and large corporations fund legal battles designed to weaken regulations, block labor rights, and influence policy decisions that benefit their financial interests.

For example, major private prison companies like CoreCivic and GEO Group, both of which have ties to influential law firms, profit from the mass incarceration of predominantly Black and Latino individuals. These private companies lobby for harsher sentencing laws and immigration policies that fill their prisons, creating a cycle of profit that thrives on systemic inequality. Legal professionals trained in elite law schools frequently represent these corporations, further entrenching the power dynamics that keep vulnerable populations incarcerated.

The billionaire class also reaps the benefits of legal loopholes and tax avoidance schemes facilitated by top-tier law firms. Lawyers trained in Ivy League schools often advise wealthy clients on ways to hide their assets, evade taxes, and exploit the legal system for personal gain, which further exacerbates income inequality. Law firms and the lawyers who work in them profit immensely by providing these services, while the broader public bears the burden of underfunded social programs and public services.

The impact of law schools’ role in the legal system is not a new development, but has historical roots. For much of U.S. history, the courts and legal institutions have played a pivotal role in limiting democracy and reinforcing inequalities. However, there have been pivotal moments when the courts, often driven by lawyers trained in the nation's top schools, expanded democracy and fought for justice.

A key moment in the history of expanding democracy was the work of Thurgood Marshall and Charles Hamilton Houston, both of whom were products of Howard University School of Law—a historically Black institution that stood in stark contrast to the elite, mostly white law schools of their time. Marshall, who went on to become the first African American Supreme Court Justice, and Houston, his mentor, fought tirelessly against segregation and racial discrimination. Houston's strategy, dubbed "the 'liberal' approach to civil rights," involved challenging discriminatory laws through the courts, using legal arguments rooted in equal protection and the promise of the 14th Amendment.

Houston's legal battles laid the groundwork for the landmark Brown v. Board of Education (1954) case, where the Supreme Court, under the influence of Marshall's legal strategies, overturned the doctrine of “separate but equal” and declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. This ruling, perhaps one of the most profound examples of the courts expanding democracy, was achieved through the work of legal professionals committed to social justice, many of whom came from institutions outside the mainstream elite law schools.

Unfortunately, the trend of the courts advancing civil rights was not consistent. The Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) decision, where the Supreme Court ruled that African Americans could not be citizens, and Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which upheld racial segregation, serve as stark reminders of how the legal system can be wielded to entrench inequality and limit democracy. The very law schools that trained many of the justices responsible for these rulings were also responsible for shaping the legal education that upheld the racist and exclusionary structures of the time.

Today, the cycle of legal education serving the interests of the wealthy and powerful continues. While the courts have sometimes played a role in broadening civil rights and democracy, too often they have sided with corporate interests, limiting progress. Lawyers trained in elite law schools continue to occupy spaces where the rules of the game are rigged in favor of those with wealth and influence.

To reverse this trend, law schools must take deliberate action. They must shift their focus from training lawyers for the highest-paying and most prestigious jobs to producing attorneys who are dedicated to the public good. This includes increasing financial accessibility, offering more scholarships for low-income students, and reevaluating the curriculum to emphasize social justice, public interest law, and equitable legal reforms. Moreover, legal education should challenge the structures of wealth and power, ensuring that future lawyers are equipped to dismantle the systems that benefit billionaires and corporations at the expense of justice.

The influence of law schools in perpetuating inequality cannot be overstated. The future of the legal profession—and, by extension, the justice system—depends on whether these institutions can embrace a new mission: one that fosters true equality under the law and dismantles the structures of privilege that continue to shape our society.

US Department of Education calls for an end to social justice and equity. What will universities do?

On February 14, the US Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, called on universities to end efforts for social justice and equity.  

There was no mention in the letter about legacy admissions at elite and highly selective universities which systematically discriminate because of social class.  

According to the Dear Colleague letter:

The law is clear: treating students differently on the basis of race to achieve nebulous goals such as diversity, racial balancing, social justice, or equity is illegal under controlling Supreme Court precedent.

The Higher Education Inquirer will document those with power in higher education who fall in line and are complicit in these anti-democratic efforts. 

We hope there will be dissenters with power, university presidents, trustees, and donors, who are willing to come forward and organize others to do the same thing. But we know that struggles like this cannot depend on those with power to step forward. 

We pray that these people in power, at the very least, will not prohibit action from students who want to exercise their God-given civil rights, including First Amendment rights of speech and assembly.

Stay tuned for more articles. 

Trump is Using Jews, Not Protecting Us (Hank Kalet, Channel Surfing)

His Executive Order on Antisemitism is a Threat to Muslims and Palestinians on Campuses and an Attack on the First Amendment

Antisemitism exists. It has a long and painful history that has embedded fear in our DNA as Jews, a fear that grows when incidents occur, like the one in Australia recently.

Police in New South Wales state, which includes Sydney, said on Wednesday they had found explosives in a caravan, or trailer, that could have created a blast wave of 40 metres (130 feet).

There was some indication the explosives might be used in an antisemitic attack that could have caused mass casualties, police said.

There also was an apparently coordinated set of “graffiti attacks” on Jewish sites that have caused the Australian Jewish community to increase security. Similar security efforts are being ramped up by Jewish groups in Europe as threats of antisemitic acts and the growth of the Far Right stoke fears.

Share

There have been reports of violent and deadly incidents throughout Europe, as well, with direct attacks on synagogues and other Jewish institutions. And there are leaders like Viktor Orhan in Hungary and political parties like Alternative for Germany who use antisemitic language and tropes, though often sanitized, amid their more targeted attacks on Muslim immigrants.

Syndicate or Reuse

Books by Hank Kalet

The United States is not immune to antisemitism, of course, but American Jews seem unable to focus on the real threats. Rather than keep our eyes trained on an ascendant right wing — including many of the people in President Donald Trump’s immediate circle, including the president himself — much of the Jewish community is focused on Israel and seems intent on conflating criticism of Israel, its war on Gaza, and the occupation with actual systemic anti-Jewish action.

This is the context for Wednesday’s executive order on “combatting antisemitism,” which targets campus protests and continues a Conservative/Republican push to peel Jews away from teh Democratic Party.

The order, as reported by The Washington Post, “is directed at universities where pro-Palestinian protests broke out last year,” and “threatens to revoke student visas of foreign students who participated in pro-Palestinian protests.”

Supporters of the order argue that these protests were antisemitic. They point to some uncomfortable speech — the equation of Israel with the Nazis, for instance — as proof, and then conflate sloganeering and assembly with physical harassment. Jewish students and faculty, the argument goes, were made uncomfortable by the protests and encampments and felt unsafe. That sense of fear, they say, proves that the protests were designed to harass, even if there was no direct harassment. It is a circular argument, but one endorsed by much of the American political establishment and leading Jewish organizations


Marc H. Ellis addresses the underlying issues with these arguments in his 2009 book Judaism Does Not Equal Israel.1 He describes what I’ll call a “triumphalist Judaism” that mixes Holocaust victimhood with Exodus (the novel) power, constructed in “the aftermath of the great Israeli triumph in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war” (6). That narrative posits several myths: that Palestine was empty and underutilized and had to be redeemed, that the “Arabs” were hostile to Jews as Jews, and that the state that was founded and that still exists remains a democratic outpost in a hostile world. This triumphalism, however, was also tied to our very real history as a persecuted minority. “Jews had once been weak and helpless,” he writes, but that was no longer the case. Yet, “our theology was telling us we were still. The fact was just the opposite. We had become empowered” and were acting as a regional power (59).

The current power dynamics in Israel/Palestine and the actual history — the forced removal of Palestinians from what is now the state and the continued usurpation of land — are treated as though they are benign acts. Israel — Jews — has become the victimizer in the region, acting as a colonial power, an occupying force.

What was “psychological,” he writes, has become “strategic.”

“If we owned up to our newfound power, we would have to be accountable for and to it. We would have to relinquish the Holocaust as the backdrop to everything Jewish.”

So Oct. 7 and the ensuing war play out as if they were new and shocking rather than as another battle — the deadliest and most traumatic, to be sure — in a decades-long rebellion by Palestinians against suppress and control by Israel.

The argument is based on an underlying anti-Muslim/anti-Arab bias that mirrors the hate and discrimination that Jews have faced across our history. It is evident in the language we (Americans and Jews) use consistently to refer to Arabs, Muslims, Palestine, and Israel. Arabs and Muslims continued to be seen as terrorists, even as the “not all” modifier is added.

Deena R. Hurwitz and Walther H. White Jr., in an article at the American Bar Association website, cite authors Sahar Aziz and John Esposito’s May 2024 book, Global Islamophobia and the Rise of Populism, to underscore a “disturbing rise of Islamophobia worldwide.”

Blaming Muslim minorities for economic, political, and social problems is an increasingly common rhetorical strategy for politicians in countries globally. A narrative of the “threatening Muslim invader” is prevalent, regardless of whether the targets of such rhetoric are born citizens or new arrivals.

Trump, for instance, mixes Islamophobic and xenophobic language as he calls for closing the borders. At the same time, he and his conservative allies rely on both anti- and philosemitic imagery when talking with and about Jews.

“In the United States, Europe, and India, Islamophobic rhetoric is essentially normalized,” Hurwitz and White write.

The use of this rhetoric reduces the history and diversity within the Muslim and Arab communities (and within the Jewish community) to “a set of stereotyped characteristics most often reducible to themes of violence, civilizational subversion, and fundamental otherness.”

Anti-Palestinian racism silences, excludes, erases, stereotypes, defames, and dehumanizes Palestinians. This is used to deny and justify violence against Palestinians and fails to acknowledge Palestinians as Indigenous people with a collective identity while erasing their human rights and equal dignity and worth.

Trump’s executive order builds on this structure of anti-Muslim/anti-Arab thought, while also endorsing stereotypes of Jews as a model minority in need of special protection — even as he dismantles what he calls the “DEI regime.” Pitting Jewish and Muslim communities against each other creates hierarchies among aggrieved groups, which the right can then use to abrogate our rights of speech, assembly, and petition. It’s also a solution that is out of proportion to the problem.

It creates a threat to international students (mostly Muslim) based purely on their protected speech and assembly, while doing nothing to improve the actual safety of Jewish students. Remember, we already have strong protections in most jurisdictions; prohibiting speech does nothing to address this.

Alex Morey of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a group that defends speech and academic freedom on campus and that has usually been allied with more conservative groups, describes what I’ll call an existential threat. She told the Forward that the order’s language might push universities to crack down on protest, because it functions as an implied threat — to funding and to visas.

Morey said that her organization was already fielding frantic queries from international students at American universities who are worried about being caught in a legal dragnet.

“These are not students that got arrested at a protest or vandalized a building, these are students who just went out and protested,” she said. “What we don’t want to see is schools saying, ‘Hey, Students for Justice in Palestine, I’m going to need a list of everyone in that club and we’re going to comb it for foreign students.’”

What we are talking about is the loss of immigration status and potential deportation as retribution for protest. It is a direct attack on the 14th Amendment’s equal rights clause, which provides “any person within (the United States) the equal protection of the laws,” including the First Amendment’s five basic freedoms.

The order brings together several of Trump’s favorite targets — higher education, Muslims, immigrants and protesters — and is part of a broader effort to undermine the academic freedom and speech rights of faculty and students in higher education. Trump is a wannabe autocrat. He sees these groups as a threat to his control. While fighting antisemitism is the ostensible reason for the order, the larger targets are our democratic institutions.

Channel Surfing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.