In prestigious universities across the country, the figurehead of the institution—the president—has become a symbol of frustration and resentment among students, faculty, and staff. These figures, often once revered as academic leaders, are increasingly viewed as little more than corporate CEOs, prioritizing the interests of wealthy trustees and donors over the very people who make the university what it is: the students and the dedicated faculty and staff who carry out its mission.
At the heart of the growing discontent is the trend of university presidents restricting freedom of speech and assembly, stifling student activism, and limiting open debate in the name of "campus safety" or "institutional stability." Instead of acting as advocates for open discourse, many university presidents have aligned themselves with powerful corporate interests, turning their backs on the very values that once defined higher education. The administration's agenda is often dictated by the whims of major donors, whose influence can shape everything from university policy to the hiring and firing of professors.
The University of Chicago, long a beacon of academic freedom, has seen its leadership take a hard turn in recent years, placing increasing restrictions on student demonstrations and dissent. Under the guise of maintaining "campus order," the administration has been known to deploy private security to break up protests and limit public forums for free speech.
Harvard University, with its enormous endowment and prestigious reputation, has become another example of an institution where the president seems more concerned with appeasing donors than listening to the students and faculty. The administration has been criticized for prioritizing relationships with donors over addressing the deepening student debt crisis and growing concerns about inequality in higher education. The university has faced a wave of student-led protests demanding action on climate change, affordable tuition, and the rights of adjunct faculty, all of which were largely ignored or dismissed by the top administration.
Harvard’s massive endowment—reportedly the largest of any university in the world—has been a focal point of controversy. While it continues to grow, many argue that the university could be doing far more to address the financial burdens of its students, particularly the mounting debt facing undergraduates. Instead, the administration has focused on expanding its brand and maintaining its status as an elite institution, often prioritizing donor preferences and legacy admissions over efforts to make education more accessible. Legacy admissions, in which children of alumni are given preferential treatment, have been a point of contention, with critics arguing that this practice entrenches privilege and reduces opportunities for marginalized students.
Even at places like Princeton University, long considered a champion of academic freedom, President Christopher Eisgruber has come under fire for clamping down on student speech and assembly. While Princeton’s administration claims to support free expression, it has quietly enacted policies to restrict protestors’ access to the administration building, citing concerns about “disruption” and “disorder.” Eisgruber, who has connections to powerful alumni, has been accused of using his position to protect the interests of wealthy donors while ignoring the voices of those who are most directly affected by the university's policies.
The University of Southern California (USC) is another prime example of a university where the president’s priorities have come under increasing scrutiny from students, faculty, and staff. Under President Carol Folt, USC has become emblematic of a trend where the administration appears more aligned with wealthy donors and corporate interests than with the needs of its campus community.
Folt, who took over as USC's president in 2019, was thrust into the spotlight during a period of significant unrest. The university had already been embroiled in scandals—including the high-profile college admissions bribery scandal—and was facing criticism for its handling of sexual assault allegations within its medical school. Rather than addressing these issues head-on, many argue that Folt’s administration focused instead on securing funding from high-profile donors and expanding the university’s brand, while sidelining the concerns of students and faculty.
This prioritization of external donors is evident in USC’s massive fundraising campaigns, which often overshadow initiatives aimed at addressing student debt, affordability, or academic freedom. USC's endowment has grown exponentially under Folt’s leadership, but student loan debt continues to be a crippling issue for many Trojans, and the concerns of adjunct faculty members remain largely ignored.
Furthermore, Folt’s administration has faced criticism for its efforts to suppress dissent on campus. For instance, student protests related to labor rights, housing issues, and calls for greater diversity on campus have been met with limited response or, at times, outright hostility. In 2022, when USC students protested the administration's handling of campus housing shortages, they were met with heightened security measures and a lack of genuine engagement from university leadership. These actions—along with Folt’s ties to the private sector, particularly her background in environmental policy and corporate leadership—have fueled perceptions that USC’s administration is more interested in protecting its brand than in creating an inclusive, participatory academic environment.
USC also exemplifies the growing disconnect between students, faculty, and administration when it comes to issues of free speech and assembly. Protests have become less frequent, as many students feel their voices will not be heard, and faculty members, particularly those in non-tenure track positions, are often too fearful of retribution to publicly criticize the administration.
The discontent with university leadership is not confined to the campus. In recent years, presidents from some of the nation's most elite institutions, including Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have faced intense scrutiny and backlash during hearings in the U.S. House of Representatives. These public hearings, aimed at addressing the growing issues of student debt, university funding, and the influence of wealthy donors on campus, have highlighted the widening disconnect between top university administrations and the communities they are supposed to serve.
During a House hearing in 2022, Lawrence Bacow of Harvard, along with MIT's President L. Rafael Reif and Penn's President Amy Gutmann, faced tough questioning from lawmakers who were deeply critical of how these institutions have handled student debt, tuition costs, and their ties to corporate interests. Bacow, in particular, faced pointed questions about Harvard's massive endowment and the university's refusal to use its resources to address skyrocketing tuition and student loan debt. Both Reif and Gutmann were grilled on how their institutions have prioritized securing donations from wealthy alumni and corporate entities over the well-being of students and faculty. The hearing exposed a troubling pattern where the presidents of these prestigious institutions seemed more concerned with maintaining their institutions' financial health than with addressing the needs of their campus communities.
Legacy admissions, a practice entrenched at many of these elite schools, also came under fire during the hearings. Critics argued that such policies perpetuate inequality, giving children of alumni—many of whom come from wealthy backgrounds—unfair advantages in the admissions process. This has contributed to the growing perception that these universities, while claiming to offer merit-based opportunities, are fundamentally shaped by privilege and corporate interests.
These public confrontations highlighted the growing frustration with university presidents who are seen as out of touch with the everyday realities facing students and faculty, as well as the increasing influence of money and corporate interests in higher education. The presidents of these universities, once seen as respected leaders, have become targets of anger and resentment, with many on Capitol Hill and on campus calling for a shift in how these institutions are governed.
These are just a few examples of elite universities where the power structure has shifted toward those who have the financial means to dictate the terms of the campus experience. As tuition costs rise and student loan debt becomes a crushing burden for many, university presidents seem more determined than ever to serve the interests of trustees and donors, rather than advocating for the people who should be their true constituents: the students, faculty, and staff who make up the heart of the academic community.
The impact of this shift has been profound. On campuses across the country, students are increasingly feeling that their voices don’t matter. Faculty members, once seen as the intellectual core of the institution, are being sidelined in favor of administrators who prioritize financial concerns over academic integrity. And staff members—many of whom are underpaid and overworked—are being pushed to the margins as well.
But it’s not just students who are feeling the heat. Faculty and staff have found their own platforms for protest increasingly under attack. At places like Yale University, where former President Peter Salovey faced criticism for neglecting the needs of faculty and for his lukewarm responses to issues like labor rights and the treatment of graduate workers, professors staged walkouts and organized petitions to voice their discontent with the administration's disregard for their well-being.
In this new era, university presidents are no longer the beloved leaders of intellectual discourse—they are the gatekeepers of corporate power, more concerned with securing funding from wealthy donors than with fostering an inclusive, open, and critical academic environment. The fallout from this shift is only growing, as campuses become hotbeds of dissent, with students, faculty, and staff increasingly questioning the direction of higher education and the people at the helm.
As the divide between administration and the campus community continues to widen, one thing is clear: the once-admired university president is now among the most hated figures on campus, seen not as a champion of academic values, but as an enforcer of an increasingly political and profit-driven agenda.
In a statement shared on social media on March 28th, Helyeh Doutaghi, the Deputy Director of the Law and Political Economy Project at Yale Law School (YLS), revealed that her employment was terminated by the prestigious institution. The firing came just days before Muslims across the world marked the second Eid under the shadow of an ongoing genocide against Palestinian families. Doutaghi’s termination followed her outspoken criticism of Zionist policies in Palestine, igniting a wider conversation about free speech, academic freedom, and institutional silencing in American universities.
According to Doutaghi, the circumstances surrounding her firing raise critical questions about the role of elite educational institutions in suppressing dissent. She criticized universities like Yale, Cornell, Columbia, and Harvard for what she described as the normalization of "fascistic governance." In her statement, Doutaghi argued that these institutions were increasingly functioning as "sites of surveillance and oppression," actively collaborating with state apparatuses to criminalize resistance movements.
Doutaghi's termination was preceded by her being placed on administrative leave in February, following allegations of ties to Samidoun, the Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, which the U.S. government has labeled a terrorist-linked organization. Doutaghi has denied any unlawful affiliation with the group, asserting that she was never given an opportunity for a fair hearing before her abrupt dismissal. In her view, Yale’s actions exemplify a broader trend of academic institutions suppressing pro-Palestinian voices, especially as the geopolitical tensions surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict escalate.
In a chilling warning about the broader implications of her firing, Doutaghi emphasized the troubling precedent her case could set for academic freedom. "This sets a chilling precedent," she wrote. "If any Al bot – or anyone at all – accuses a Yale faculty or student of wrongdoing, that alone can now suffice to end their career." Doutaghi's comments draw attention to concerns about due process in academic settings, especially when external pressures—such as politically motivated surveillance or AI-generated campaigns—are used to target and silence critical voices.
The investigation into Doutaghi's alleged ties to Samidoun came to light after an article in Jewish Onliner, an Israeli publication. However, doubts have been raised about the credibility of the publication. Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Jewish Onliner might be an AI-generated bot with potential links to the Israeli government and military, further casting uncertainty on the investigation’s motives. Doutaghi’s attorney, Eric Lee, pointed out that the basis for the investigation was flimsy, with the sole evidence being an online article, raising serious questions about the fairness and transparency of Yale’s decision-making process.
Doutaghi has also linked her termination to broader shifts in U.S. policy, particularly under the Trump administration, which she claims has escalated attacks on noncitizen students and faculty supporting Palestinian human rights. For Doutaghi, her firing is symptomatic of a deeper crisis in American institutions, one that reflects the decline of what she calls "Western liberal democracy." She contends that these systems, despite their outward commitment to democracy and human rights, are built to serve the interests of the propertied classes, often at the expense of marginalized communities.
The implications of Doutaghi’s termination extend beyond her personal case, signaling a potentially dangerous precedent for academic freedom in the U.S. As universities increasingly become sites of ideological conformity, there is growing concern that dissenting voices—particularly those in solidarity with Palestine—are being systematically silenced. The firing raises questions about the extent to which academic institutions are willing to protect free speech in the face of external political and social pressures.
In the wake of Doutaghi’s dismissal, students, faculty members, and advocacy groups have rallied in support of her, condemning Yale’s actions as an affront to academic freedom. Protests have erupted at various campuses, demanding accountability from university administrators and calling for the protection of Palestinian human rights.
As the case continues to unfold, the larger debate about the role of universities in upholding democratic values, academic freedom, and social justice remains at the forefront. Doutaghi’s statement serves as a reminder of the precarious nature of dissent in today’s political climate, where even academic institutions that once stood as bastions of free thought and expression are increasingly vulnerable to the pressures of political influence and ideological control.
The question now facing the broader academic community is how to respond to the growing trend of censorship and silencing on campuses. Will institutions like Yale take a stand in defense of free speech, or will they continue to bow to external political and social pressures? The answers to these questions will have far-reaching consequences for the future of academic freedom in the United States.
In recent years, the rise of organizations like Canary Mission has raised serious concerns about the state of free speech, academic freedom, and democracy on American college campuses. Operating under the guise of combating anti-Semitism and extremism, Canary Mission’s tactics and objectives have sparked widespread debate about its impact on campus life and the broader implications for democracy in the U.S.
Who is Canary Mission?
Founded in 2015, Canary Mission is a controversial online platform that compiles and publishes dossiers on students, professors, and organizations it deems to be associated with anti-Semitism or support for groups like Hamas or Hezbollah. While it claims to be an anti-extremist initiative, critics argue that Canary Mission’s activities are part of a broader, coordinated effort to silence pro-Palestinian voices, suppress critical discourse, and undermine academic freedom.
The organization's name derives from the "canary in the coal mine" metaphor, suggesting that it is warning the public about supposed dangers related to individuals and groups it monitors. But in practice, Canary Mission’s database often targets individuals solely for their political views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with no proven ties to terrorism or violence. Students, particularly those involved in pro-Palestinian activism or who criticize Israel’s policies, have found themselves the subject of detailed and often misleading profiles that can haunt their careers.
The impact of Canary Mission is far-reaching: students who appear on the site have reported facing backlash in the form of social ostracism, job discrimination, and even legal action, all because their political activities or beliefs have been highlighted on this platform. Canary Mission’s website claims to provide a “public service” by exposing individuals “advocating for hate,” but its methods often conflate political activism with extremism, which can create an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship within academic circles.
Funding and Connections
Canary Mission’s funding sources remain somewhat opaque, which raises questions about its backing and potential influence. According to investigative reports and public disclosures, it is widely believed that the organization is funded by a network of right-wing pro-Israel groups, including wealthy donors, philanthropic organizations, and think tanks like the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. These connections underscore a broader ideological agenda that aligns with certain political interests, particularly those that aim to stifle critical discussions surrounding Israel’s policies and its occupation of Palestine.
The secrecy surrounding its financial backing and the lack of transparency in its operations have led many to draw parallels between Canary Mission and other shadowy entities designed to police speech and dissent. It appears to operate in the shadows, with little public oversight or accountability. This lack of transparency further erodes trust in its motivations and methods.
Undermining Democracy and Free Speech
At its core, Canary Mission's activities are a direct attack on the fundamental principles of democracy: free speech and the right to dissent. In a healthy democracy, universities serve as incubators for diverse ideas, where students are encouraged to debate and challenge ideas without fear of retribution. However, by tracking and blacklisting individuals who express views about Israel, Palestine, or other sensitive geopolitical issues, Canary Mission is chilling free expression on campuses across the country.
The organization’s efforts to publicly shame individuals who participate in peaceful political activism not only threatens their personal and professional futures but also discourages others from speaking out. In effect, it promotes an atmosphere of fear where students are reluctant to engage in legitimate political discourse out of concern for being targeted.
Moreover, Canary Mission’s activities can create a toxic, polarized environment on campuses. By labeling individuals as extremists based on their political positions rather than their actions or behaviors, the organization fuels division and resentment. This undermines the civil discourse that should thrive in academic settings, where ideas are meant to be debated and critically examined. Instead, it creates an echo chamber that only accepts one viewpoint, forcing out dissent and opposition.
The claim that Canary Mission is a controversial organization that undermines democracy on U.S. campuses can be supported by multiple sources from investigative journalists, academic scholars, and civil rights organizations who have analyzed the organization's activities. Here are a few sources that substantiate the concerns regarding Canary Mission:
The New York Times (2016) – An article titled "A Shadowy Online Group Is Targeting American Students" highlights the growing concerns about Canary Mission's activities and its impact on free speech on campuses. The piece discusses how students, particularly those involved in pro-Palestinian activism, are being targeted and profiled on the platform, leading to career and personal repercussions.
The Electronic Intifada (2016) – This online news platform dedicated to issues surrounding Palestine and Israel published several articles that discuss how Canary Mission disproportionately targets students and activists critical of Israeli policies. The site’s reports argue that the platform acts as an intimidation tool against those who challenge mainstream narratives regarding Israel.
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) – The CCR has expressed concern over the chilling effects Canary Mission has on academic freedom and free speech. They highlight how the organization often labels political activism as extremism, without proper evidence, and argues that it is a form of political repression aimed at silencing certain voices.
The Forward (2018) – A Jewish publication, The Forward ran a story detailing how Canary Mission had led to the harassment and blacklisting of students, and how its methods were drawing criticism from many who saw it as an attack on academic freedom.
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Reports – While the ADL has supported efforts to combat anti-Semitism, they have also raised concerns about the unintended consequences of organizations like Canary Mission, suggesting that their approach to monitoring student activism can blur the line between legitimate political expression and hate speech.
The Guardian (2017) – A Guardian article explored how Canary Mission's controversial practices affected student life, particularly those involved in the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement. The article discusses the potential damage to reputations and careers due to Canary Mission's online blacklist.
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) – The SPLC has been vocal about the ways in which Canary Mission’s tactics align with other surveillance programs aimed at quelling dissent. The SPLC has voiced concern about its potential for misusing "extremism" labels to stifle legitimate political views, undermining democracy and the right to free speech.
Canary Mission's efforts to stifle free speech and intimidate those who hold opposing views on sensitive political issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict represent a dangerous erosion of democratic values in American higher education. By using fear, intimidation, and a lack of transparency to silence critical voices, it undermines the very foundation of academic freedom and democratic engagement.
Universities should be spaces where open dialogue and differing opinions are encouraged, not spaces where students are targeted for their political beliefs. As the influence of groups like Canary Mission continues to grow, it is imperative that the broader academic community pushes back against these efforts and defends the principles of free speech, democratic engagement, and intellectual diversity. Without these values, our campuses—and our democracy—will be all the poorer for it.
“When Fascism came into power, most people were unprepared, both theoretically and practically. They were unable to believe that man could exhibit such propensities for evil, such lust for power, such disregard for the rights of the weak, or such yearning for submission. Only a few had been aware of the rumbling of the volcano preceding the outbreak.”
—Erich Fromm, Escape From Freedom
On this Independence Day in 2025, the air is heavy with foreboding. Across the United States, fireworks burst into the sky as if nothing has changed. But below the spectacle lies a country teetering between democracy and authoritarian rule. The institutions tasked with preserving truth, freedom, and critical thought—most notably higher education—are caught in the crossfire of what Erich Fromm warned of nearly a century ago: the rise of modern fascism, not as a dramatic coup, but as a creeping normalization of authoritarian values under the guise of "freedom."
The Rumbles Before the Eruption
In hindsight, the signs were glaring. Corporate capture of the public good. The erosion of academic freedom. The transformation of universities from spaces of inquiry to credential factories and financial instruments. A growing surveillance infrastructure built not only by Big Tech but in concert with university IT departments, data brokers, and online program managers. The rise of so-called “free speech zones” and legislative gag orders that redefined political speech while silencing dissent.
What we are witnessing is not merely political turbulence—it is a full-scale epistemic breakdown, a national forgetting of what education is supposed to be.
The Trump Spending Bill and Project 2025
The reemergence of Donald Trump on the national stage—and his allies' vision through the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025—has laid bare the authoritarian designs of a political movement bent on reshaping the federal government into a weapon against its own people. Under the new Trump Spending Bill, long-standing environmental protections, civil rights enforcement, and funding for critical education and research have been gutted. Student aid programs like Pell Grants are under siege, while massive giveaways to corporate polluters and military contractors accelerate.
The Department of Education itself is on life support, with Executive Order 14242 outlining a road map for its dissolution. Academic accreditation is being refashioned into a tool of ideological enforcement. DEI initiatives are being replaced with patriotic education mandates, while campuses are encouraged to police faculty and curricula for "anti-Americanism."
Higher Education: Complicit, Crippled, and Co-opted
Higher education did not arrive at this moment innocently. Elite institutions embraced neoliberalism decades ago, relying increasingly on corporate donations, defense contracts, and hedge fund returns. Many public universities, once proud bastions of working-class mobility, became tuition-dependent and debt-financed enterprises.
For years, scholars warned of growing authoritarian trends in American politics. But those voices—often contingent faculty, graduate students, and independent researchers—were sidelined, their jobs precarious, their influence limited. Meanwhile, college presidents and boards of trustees courted billionaires and politicians, hoping to remain above the fray.
The result is a sector fractured and weakened, unable to mount a coherent defense of democracy. In many places, it has become part of the problem—administered by opportunists, managed by AI-powered surveillance, and staffed by an underclass of overworked adjuncts who barely make a living.
The Yearning for Submission
Fromm’s insight—his warning that many people want to submit—rings especially true today. The cult of personality, the vilification of expertise, and the rise of conspiracy over fact have flourished in a vacuum of meaning and solidarity. Higher education once promised both, but its commodification has left millions alienated, indebted, and skeptical.
The myth of meritocracy—long propped up by institutions like Harvard, Stanford, and the University of Phoenix—has collapsed under the weight of its contradictions. People now look elsewhere for answers: to strongmen, to influencers, to AI chatbots, and to nostalgic visions of a past that never truly existed.
What Comes Next?
This is not a call for despair, but for resistance. If there is hope for American democracy, it lies in reclaiming the public mission of education—not just in words, but in practice.
That means supporting independent and investigative journalism. It means dismantling the corporate stranglehold on curriculum, research, and governance. It means honoring the work of teachers, librarians, and adjuncts who continue to hold the line in the face of overwhelming odds. And it means building alliances with those outside the academy—working families, community organizers, students—who understand that education is not a luxury, but a battleground.
On this Fourth of July, let us not retreat into comfortable myths or cynical fatalism. The volcano is still rumbling. But so too is the conscience of those who refuse to be silenced.
Let us remember: freedom is not inherited—it is practiced, defended, and reimagined in every generation.
Sources
Erich Fromm, Escape From Freedom (1941)
Heritage Foundation, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise (Project 2025)
U.S. House of Representatives, 2025 Appropriations Bill
The Century Foundation, “The Future of Higher Ed in an Age of Authoritarianism” (2024)
Chronicle of Higher Education, “Colleges Under Siege” (2025)
Did
you know that Truthout is a nonprofit and independently funded by
readers like you? If you value what we do, please support our work with a donation.
Trump appears bent on ridding schools of dangerous practices like critical thinking and an unsanitized study of history.
In the initial days of his second term, President Donald Trump issued several executive orders “seeking
to control how schools teach about race and gender, direct more tax
dollars to private schools, and deport pro-Palestinian protesters.” On January 29, 2025, he signed the “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling”
executive order, which mandates the elimination of curricula that the
administration deems as promoting “radical, anti-American ideologies.”
This executive order is not just an attack on critical race theory or
teachings about systemic racism — it is a cornerstone of an
authoritarian ideology designed to eliminate critical thought, suppress
historical truth and strip educators of their autonomy. Under the guise
of combating “divisiveness,” it advances a broader war on education as a
democratizing force, turning schools into dead zones of the
imagination. By threatening to strip federal funding from institutions
that refuse to conform, this policy functions as an instrument of
ideological indoctrination, enforcing a sanitized, nationalistic
narrative that erases histories of oppression and resistance while
deepening a culture of ignorance and compliance.
Concurrently, President Trump issued the “Expanding Educational Freedom and Opportunity for Families”
executive order, aiming to enhance school choice by redirecting federal
funds to support charter schools and voucher programs. This policy
enables parents to use public funds for private and religious school
tuition. While proponents claim that this legislation empowers parents
and fosters competition, in reality, it is a calculated effort to defund
and privatize public education, undermining it as a democratizing
public good. As part of a broader far right assault on education, this
policy redirects essential resources away from public schools, deepening
educational inequality and advancing an agenda that seeks to erode
public investment in a just and equitable society.
In the name of eliminating radical indoctrination in schools, a third executive order,
which purportedly aims at ending antisemitism, threatens to deport
pro-Palestinian student protesters by revoking their visas, warning that even those legally in the country could be targeted
for their political views. In a stark display of authoritarianism,
Trump’s executive order unapologetically stated that free speech would
not be tolerated. Reuters
made this clear in reporting that one fact sheet ominously declared: “I
will … quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on
college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never
before. To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist
protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will
deport you.”
By gutting federal oversight, he is handing the fate of education to
reactionary state legislatures and corporate interests, ensuring that
knowledge is shaped by a state held captive by billionaires and far
right extremists. This is the logic of authoritarianism: to hollow out
democratic institutions and replace education with white Christian
propaganda and a pedagogy of repression. At issue here is an attempt to
render an entire generation defenseless against the very forces seeking
to dominate them.
What we are witnessing is not just an educational crisis but a
full-scale war on institutions that not only defend democracy but enable
it. What is under siege in this attack is not only the critical
function of education but the very notion that it should be defined
through its vision of creating a central feature of democracy, educating
informed and critically engaged citizens.
These executive actions represent an upgraded and broader version of
McCarthyite and apartheid-era education that seeks to dictate how
schools teach about race and gender, funnel more taxpayer dollars into
private institutions, and deport Palestinian protesters. The irony is
striking: The White House defends these regressive measures of
sanitizing history, stripping away the rights of transgender students
and erasing critical race theory as efforts to “end indoctrination in
American education.” In truth, this is not about the pursuit of freedom
or open inquiry, nor is it about fostering an education that cultivates
informed, critically engaged citizens. At its core, this agenda is a
deliberate attack on education as a public good — one that threatens to
dismantle not only public institutions, but the very essence of public
and higher education and its culture of criticism and democracy. The
urgency of this moment cannot be overstated: The future of education
itself is at stake.
In the raging currents of contemporary political and cultural life,
where fascist ideologies are rising, one of the most insidious and
all-encompassing forces at play is the violence of forgetting — a plague
of historical amnesia. This phenomenon, which I have referred to as “organized forgetting,”
describes the systemic erasure of history and its violent consequences,
particularly in the public sphere. This is especially evident in the
current historical moment, when books are banned in
libraries, public schools and higher education across countries, such
as the United States, Hungary, India, China and Russia. Ignoring past
atrocities, historical injustices and uncomfortable truths about a
society’s foundation is not merely an oversight — it constitutes an
active form of violence that shapes both our collective consciousness
and political realities. What we are witnessing here is an assault by
the far right on memory that is inseparable from what Maximillian
Alvarez describes as a battle over power — over who is remembered, who
is erased, who is cast aside and who is forcibly reduced to something
less than human. This struggle is not just about history; it is about
whose stories are allowed to shape the present and the future. Alvarez captures this reality with striking clarity and is worth quoting at length:
Among the prizes at stake in the endless war of politics is history
itself. The battle for power is always a battle to determine who gets
remembered, how they will be recalled, where and in what forms their
memories will be preserved. In this battle, there is no room for neutral
parties: every history and counter-history must fight and scrap and
claw and spread and lodge itself in the world, lest it be forgotten or
forcibly erased. All history, in this sense, is the history of empire — a
bid for control of that greatest expanse of territory, the past.
Organized forgetting also helped fuel the resurgence of Donald Trump,
as truth and reason are being systematically replaced by lies,
corruption, denial and the weaponization of memory itself. A culture of
questioning, critique and vision is not simply disappearing in the
United States — it is actively maligned, disparaged and replaced by a
darkness that, as Ezra Klein
observes, is “stupefyingly vast, stretching from self-destructive
incompetence to muddling incoherence to authoritarian consolidation.”
This erosion affects institutions of law, civil society and education
— pillars that rely on memory, informed judgment and evidence to foster
historical understanding and civic responsibility. The attack on the
common good goes beyond the distractions of an “attention economy”designed
to distort reality; it reflects a deliberate effort to sever the ties
between history and meaning. Time is reduced to fragmented episodes,
stripped of the shared narratives that connect the past, present and
future.
This crisis embodies a profound collapse of memory, history,
education and democracy itself. A culture of manufactured ignorance —
rooted in the rejection of history, facts and critical thought — erases
accountability for electing a leader who incited insurrection and
branded his opponents as “enemies from within.” Such authoritarian
politics thrive on historical amnesia, lulling society into passivity,
eroding collective memory and subverting civic agency. This is
epitomized by Trump’s declaration
on “Fox & Friends” that he would punish schools that teach students
accurate U.S. history, including about slavery and racism in the
country. The call to silence dangerous memories is inseparable from the
violence of state terrorism — a force that censors and dehumanizes
dissent, escalating to the punishment, torture and imprisonment of
truth-tellers and critics who dare to hold oppressive power accountable.
At its core, the violence of forgetting operates through the denial
and distortion of historical events, particularly those that challenge
the dominant narratives of power. From the colonial atrocities and the
struggles for civil rights to the history of Palestine-Israel relations,
many of the most significant chapters of history are either glossed
over or erased altogether. This strategic omission serves the interests
of those in power, enabling them to maintain control by silencing
inconvenient truths. As the historian Timothy Snyder
reminds us, by refusing to acknowledge the violence of the past,
society makes it far easier to perpetuate injustices in the present. The
politics of organized forgetting, the censoring of history and the
attack on historical consciousness are fundamental to the rise of far
right voices in the U.S. and across the world.
With the rise of regressive memory laws, designed to repress what
authoritarian governments consider dangerous and radical interpretations
of a country’s past, historical consciousness is transformed into a
form of historical amnesia. One vivid example of a regressive memory law
was enacted by Trump during his first term. The 1776 Report,
which right-wingers defended as a “restoration of American education,”
was in fact an attempt to eliminate from the teaching of history any
reference to a legacy of colonialism, slavery and movements which
highlighted elements of American history that were unconscionable,
anti-democratic and morally repugnant. Snyder highlights the emergence
of memory laws in a number of states. He writes in a 2021 New York Times article:
As of this writing, five states (Idaho, Iowa, Tennessee, Texas and
Oklahoma) have passed laws that direct and restrict discussions of
history in classrooms. The Department of Education of a sixth (Florida)
has passed guidelines with the same effect. Another 12 state
legislatures are still considering memory laws. The particulars of these
laws vary. The Idaho law is the most Kafkaesque in its censorship: It
affirms freedom of speech and then bans divisive speech. The Iowa law
executes the same totalitarian pirouette. The Tennessee and Texas laws
go furthest in specifying what teachers may and may not say. In
Tennessee teachers must not teach that the rule of law is “a series of
power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups.”… The
Idaho law mentions Critical Race Theory; the directive from the Florida
school board bans it in classrooms. The Texas law forbids teachers from
requiring students to understand the 1619 Project. It is a perverse
goal: Teachers succeed if students do not understand something.
A major aspect of this forgetting and erasure of historical memory is the role of ignorance,
which has become not just widespread but weaponized in modern times.
Ignorance, particularly in U.S. society, has shifted from being a
passive lack of knowledge to an active refusal to engage with critical
issues. This is amplified by the spectacle-driven nature of contemporary
media and the increasing normalization of a culture of lies and the
embrace of a language of violence, which not only thrives on distraction
rather than reflection, but has become a powerful force for spreading
bigotry, racial hatred and right-wing lies. In addition, the mainstream
media’s obsession with spectacle — be it political drama, celebrity
culture or sensationalist stories — often overshadows the more
important, yet less glamorous, discussions about historical violence and
systemic injustice.
This intellectual neglect allows for a dangerous cycle to persist,
where the erasure of history enables the continuation of violence and
oppression. Systems of power benefit from this amnesia, as it allows
them to maintain the status quo without having to answer for past
wrongs. When society refuses to remember or address past injustices —
whether it’s slavery, imperialism or economic exploitation — those in
power can continue to exploit the present without fear of historical
accountability.
To strip education of its critical power is to rob democracy of its transformative potential.
The cultural impact of this organized forgetting is profound. Not
only does it create a void in public memory, but it also stunts
collective growth. Without the lessons of the past, it becomes nearly
impossible to learn from mistakes and address the root causes of social
inequalities. The failure to remember makes it harder to demand
meaningful change, while reproducing and legitimating ongoing far right
assaults on democracy.
The violence of organized forgetting is not a mere act of neglect; it
is a deliberate cultural and intellectual assault that undercuts the
foundations of any meaningful democracy. By erasing the past, society
implicitly condones the ongoing oppression of marginalized groups and
perpetuates harmful ideologies that thrive in ignorance. This erasure
silences the voices of those who have suffered — denying them the space
to speak their truth and demand justice. It is not limited to historical
injustices alone; it extends to the present, silencing those who
courageously criticize contemporary violence, such as Israel’s
U.S.-backed genocidal war on Gaza, and those brave enough to hold power
accountable.
The act of forgetting is not passive; it actively supports systems of
oppression and censorship, muffling dissent and debate, both of which
are essential for a healthy democracy.
Equally dangerous is the form of historical amnesia that has come to
dominate our contemporary political and cultural landscape. This
organized forgetting feeds into a pedagogy of manufactured ignorance
that prioritizes emotion over reason and spectacle over truth. In this
process, history is fragmented and distorted, making it nearly
impossible to construct a coherent understanding of the past. As a
result, public institutions — particularly education — are undermined,
as critical thinking and social responsibility give way to shallow,
sensationalized narratives. Higher education, once a bastion for the
development of civic literacy and the moral imperative of understanding
our role as both individuals and social agents, is now attacked by
forces seeking to cleanse public memory of past social and political
progress. Figures like Trump embody this threat, working to erase the
memory of strides made in the name of equality, justice and human
decency. This organized assault on historical memory and intellectual
rigor strikes at the heart of democracy itself. When we allow the
erasure of history and the undermining of critical thought, we risk
suffocating the ideals that democracy promises: justice, equality and
accountability.
A democracy cannot thrive in the absence of informed and engaged
agents that are capable of questioning, challenging and reimagining a
future different from the present. Without such citizens, the very
notion of democracy becomes a hollow, disembodied ideal — an illusion of
freedom without the substance of truth or responsibility. Education, in
this context, is not merely a tool for transmitting knowledge; it is
the foundation and bedrock of political consciousness. To be educated,
to be a citizen, is not a neutral or passive state — it is a vital,
active political and moral engagement with the world, grounded in
critical thinking and democratic possibility. It is a recognition that
the act of learning and the act of being a citizen are inextricable from
each other. To strip education of its critical power is to rob
democracy of its transformative potential.
Confronting the violence of forgetting requires a shift in how we
engage with history. Intellectuals, educators and activists must take up
the responsibility of reintroducing the painful truths of the past into
public discourse. This is not about dwelling in the past for its own
sake, but about understanding its relevance to the present and future.
To break the cycles of violence, society must commit to remembering, not
just for the sake of memory, but as a critical tool for progress.
Moreover, engaging with history honestly requires recognizing that
the violence of forgetting is not a one-time event but a continual
process. Systems of power don’t simply forget; they actively work to
erase, rewrite and sanitize historical narratives. This means that the
fight to remember is ongoing and requires constant vigilance. It’s not
enough to simply uncover historical truths; society must work to ensure
that these truths are not forgotten again, buried under the weight of
media spectacles, ideological repression and political theater.
Ultimately, the violence of forgetting is an obstacle to genuine
social change. Without confronting the past — acknowledging the violence
and injustices that have shaped our world — we cannot hope to build a
more just and informed future. To move forward, any viable democratic
social order must reckon with its past, break free from the bonds of
ignorance, and commit to creating a future based on knowledge, justice
and accountability.
The task of confronting and dismantling the violent structures shaped
by the power of forgetting is immense, yet the urgency has never been
more pronounced. In an era where the scope and power of new pedagogical
apparatuses such as social media and AI dominate our cultural and
intellectual landscapes, the challenge becomes even more complex. While
they hold potential for education and connection, these technologies are
controlled by a reactionary ruling class of financial elite and
billionaires, and they are increasingly wielded to perpetuate
disinformation, fragment history and manipulate public discourse. The
authoritarian algorithms that drive these platforms increasingly
prioritize sensationalism over substance, lies over truth, the
appropriation of power over social responsibility, and in doing so,
reinforce modes of civic illiteracy, while attacking those fundamental
institutions which enable critical perspectives and a culture of
questioning.
The vital need for collective action and intellectual engagement to
reclaim and restore historical truth, critical thinking and social
responsibility is urgent. The present historical moment, both
unprecedented and alarming, resonates with Antonio Gramsci’s reflection
on an earlier era marked by the rise of fascism: “The old world is
dying, and the new world struggles to be born; now is the time of
monsters.”
In the face of a deepening crisis of history, memory and agency, any
meaningful resistance must be collective, disruptive and
unapologetically unsettling — challenging entrenched orthodoxies and
dismantling the forces that perpetuate ignorance and injustice. This
struggle needs to be both radical in its essence and uncompromising in
its demands for social change, recognizing education as inseparable from
politics and the tangible challenges people face in their everyday
lives. In this collective effort lies the power to dismantle the
barriers to truth, rebuild the foundations of critical thought, and
shape a future rooted in knowledge, justice and a profound commitment to
make power accountable. Central to this vision is the capacity to learn
from history, to nurture a historical consciousness that informs our
present and to reimagine agency as an essential force in the enduring
struggle for democracy. This call for a radical imagination cannot be
confined to classrooms but must emerge as a transformative force
embedded in a united, multiracial, working-class movement. Only then can
we confront the urgent crises of our time.
We’re resisting Trump’s authoritarian pressure.
As
the Trump administration moves a mile-a-minute to implement right-wing
policies and sow confusion, reliable news is an absolute must.
Truthout
is working diligently to combat the fear and chaos that pervades the
political moment. We’re requesting your support at this moment because
we need it – your monthly gift allows us to publish uncensored,
nonprofit news that speaks with clarity and truth in a moment when
confusion and misinformation are rampant. As well, we’re looking with
hope at the material action community activists are taking. We’re
uplifting mutual aid projects, the life-sustaining work of immigrant and
labor organizers, and other shows of solidarity that resist the
authoritarian pressure of the Trump administration.
As we work to dispel the atmosphere of political despair, we ask that you contribute to our journalism. Over 80 percent of Truthout’s
funding comes from small individual donations from our community of
readers, and over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring
monthly donors.
8
days remain in our fundraiser, and you can help by giving today.
Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.
This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.
Washington,
DC—The American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U)
today released the results of a national survey of faculty perceptions
and experiences related to academic freedom and civil discourse in
higher education. Funded by the Arthur Vining Davis Foundations and
conducted in partnership with the American Association of University
Professors and NORC at the University of Chicago, the survey was
administered online and included faculty of all ranks and disciplines at
public and private, two-year and four-year institutions throughout the
United States.
The survey found clear evidence that faculty value
diverse student perspectives, encourage civil discourse among students,
and support free speech in the classroom. Moreover, faculty see
educational value in classroom discussions of controversial topics or
issues and do not support censoring course materials. Overall, however,
the survey results point to a recent and ongoing decline in academic
freedom across American higher education—a decline perceived by more
than a third of all faculty members across a wide variety of indicators.
Faculty
today are concerned about growing restrictions on their academic
freedom and worry that expressing their views freely may lead to online
harassment or professional repercussions. In the current climate,
faculty are less willing to address controversial topics and more likely
to self-censor. The survey also found evidence of a chilling effect
produced by the spread of legislative restrictions, enacted since 2021,
on the teaching, learning, and discussion of so-called “divisive
concepts” related to race, gender, LGBTQ+ identities, and American
history.
“Without the academic freedom to explore significant and
controversial questions, higher education’s mission of advancing
knowledge and educating students for work, life, and citizenship cannot
be fulfilled,” said AAC&U President Lynn Pasquerella. “The results
of this national survey provide the most compelling evidence yet of the
significant and alarming erosion of academic freedom across American
higher education. The findings should serve as a wake-up call for campus
leaders, policymakers, and anyone who understands the vital role higher
education plays in improving the lives of individuals and communities,
driving innovation and economic growth, and sustaining our democracy.”
Selected Findings
More
than 1 in 3 faculty say they have less academic freedom today when it
comes to teaching content without any interference (35%), speaking
freely as citizens (36%), and speaking freely when participating in
institutional governance (38%).
More than half (53%) are
concerned about their ability to express what they believe as scholars
to be correct statements about the world and worry that their beliefs or
activities as faculty members may make them targets of online
harassment.
Significant percentages of faculty have faced
restrictions on what they can say in faculty and department meetings
(36%) or on social media (33%) and what they teach in their courses
(24%).
52% of faculty have altered the language in something
they have written in order to avoid controversy; most refrain from using
terms or words they believe might be perceived as offensive by their
students (62%), by administrators (57%), by other faculty members (57%),
or by institutional staff (54%).
53% believe classroom
discussion of controversial topics or issues should be encouraged and
should occur frequently because of its educational value.
93% believe faculty should intentionally invite student perspectives from all sides of an issue.
57%
encourage mutually respectful disagreement among the students in their
courses either “quite a bit” or “a great deal,” and 70% believe that the
amount of mutually respectful disagreement among their students is
“about right.”
Just 12% believe classroom discussions should be
halted if views are expressed that some students feel causes harm to
certain groups of people, and just 5% believe a required reading or
other assignment should be dropped if it includes such views.
“Our
hope is that this study inspires, in equal measure, both reflection and
action across higher education,” said the report’s coauthor, Ashley
Finley, Vice President for Research and Senior Advisor to the President
at AAC&U. “Though colleges and universities may lack influence over
legislative actions, there is much collective power in their ability to
address faculty mental health, encourage respectful discourse within and
beyond the classroom, and invite thoughtful debate about the meaning
and applications of academic freedom within institutions.”
The
survey was conducted online between December 7, 2023, and February 12,
2024, by NORC at the University of Chicago. The survey sample included
164,815 individuals who, during the preceding twelve-month period, had
instructional duties and/or served in a faculty role at a two- or
four-year public or private college or university in the United States.
The
survey instrument was developed under the guidance of a national
advisory group: Samuel Abrams, Sarah Lawrence College; Cory Clark,
University of Pennsylvania; Jonathan Friedman, PEN America; Isaac
Kamola, Trinity College; April Kelly, Elizabethtown College; Frederick
Lawrence, Phi Beta Kappa; Kenann McKenzie-DeFranza, Gordon College;
Demetri Morgan, Loyola University Chicago; and Andrew Seligsohn, Public
Agenda.
About AAC&U
The American Association of
Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) is a global membership
organization dedicated to advancing the democratic purposes of higher
education by promoting equity, innovation, and excellence in liberal
education. Through our programs and events, publications and research,
public advocacy, and campus-based projects, AAC&U serves as a
catalyst and facilitator for innovations that improve educational
quality and equity and that support the success of all students. In
addition to accredited public and private, two-year and four-year
colleges and universities, and state higher education systems and
agencies throughout the United States, our membership includes
degree-granting higher education institutions around the world as well
as other organizations and individuals. To learn more, visit www.aacu.org.
Bari Weiss has built a powerful public identity as a defender of free speech against institutional conformity. From elite universities to legacy newsrooms, she presents herself as a principled dissenter confronting ideological capture. Yet her expanding influence across higher education and corporate media suggests something deeper than individual controversy. It reveals how elite institutions are increasingly repackaging control, consolidation, and risk management as rebellion.
Weiss’s involvement in the University of Austin and her editorial authority at CBS News illustrate how the language of free inquiry has been absorbed into a broader project of institutional realignment rather than democratization.
The University of Austin was launched in 2021 as a highly publicized response to what its founders described as illiberal conditions in American higher education. Weiss, as a co-founder and public face of the project, helped frame UATX as a refuge for intellectual risk-taking and heterodox thought. Yet the institution was not built from the margins of academia. It emerged through the backing of wealthy donors, venture capitalists, tech executives, and high-profile media figures who already occupy powerful positions within American public life.
UATX’s critique of higher education centers almost entirely on cultural politics, presenting universities as hostile to dissent while leaving largely untouched the material structures that govern academic freedom. The casualization of academic labor, the erosion of tenure, donor influence over research agendas, student debt as a disciplinary force, and retaliation against labor organizers and whistleblowers rarely figure into the narrative. In this way, UATX offers not a systemic challenge to elite education but an exit strategy for those with the resources to opt out of public accountability.
The same logic appears in Weiss’s role within legacy media. In late 2025, CBS News pulled a completed investigative segment from 60 Minutes examining the Trump administration’s deportation of Venezuelan migrants to a notoriously brutal prison in El Salvador. The segment had reportedly passed legal and editorial review. The decision to shelve it, attributed to a demand for additional on-the-record administration comment, sparked internal outrage. Veteran journalists described the move as political interference rather than standard editorial caution, with some staff reportedly threatening to resign.
The episode carried a deep irony. One of the most prominent self-described defenders of free speech now presided over the suppression of investigative journalism within one of the country’s most storied news programs. Whether temporary or permanent, the delay signaled a shift in institutional priorities, where political sensitivity and corporate risk appeared to outweigh journalistic autonomy.
This controversy unfolded amid broader upheaval at CBS News. Longtime anchors departed the CBS Evening News in emotional farewells as management reshuffled talent and redefined the network’s public posture. Inside the newsroom, morale reportedly declined as staff faced uncertainty about editorial direction, layoffs, and ideological repositioning. Weiss reportedly questioned journalists about public perceptions of bias, reinforcing a top-down effort to rebrand the organization rather than engage in collective editorial deliberation.
These developments cannot be separated from the corporate transformation of CBS’s parent company. Paramount Global has undergone a sweeping restructuring shaped by its merger with Skydance Media, led by David Ellison, the son of Oracle founder Larry Ellison. Under this new ownership structure, CBS News has been encouraged to restore “balance” and credibility, language that often accompanies efforts to reduce investigative risk and align journalism more closely with corporate and political interests.
At the same time, Paramount’s deal-making has intersected with elite political networks. Jared Kushner’s private equity firm was involved in related media acquisition efforts before withdrawing, highlighting the increasingly blurred lines between media ownership, political influence, and capital consolidation. In this environment, editorial independence is not abolished outright but carefully managed, constrained by the priorities of ownership and the sensitivities of power.
What connects UATX and CBS News under Weiss’s influence is not ideology so much as structure. In both cases, authority flows upward while dissent is curated. Free inquiry is framed as a moral value but detached from democratic governance, labor protections, or accountability to those most vulnerable to institutional retaliation. Meanwhile, individuals and groups who experience genuine silencing in academia and media—adjunct faculty, student activists, labor organizers, whistleblowers, and critics of militarism or donor power—remain largely absent from this version of the free speech debate.
This pattern is familiar within higher education. When institutions face crises of legitimacy, elites rarely pursue democratization. Instead, they create alternatives that preserve control under new branding: private institutes, donor-led centers, honors colleges, and parallel universities. Legacy media has followed a similar path, repackaging dissent while narrowing the scope of accountability.
Bari Weiss is not an anomaly within this landscape. She is emblematic of it. Her influence reflects how “free speech” has become an aesthetic rather than a structural commitment, invoked loudly while practiced selectively.
The danger is not that Weiss holds strong opinions. It is that her framework for free speech travels so easily across institutions precisely because it leaves their economic and power relations intact. The University of Austin does not confront the forces hollowing out higher education. CBS News, under corporate consolidation, risks muting the investigative journalism that once defined it. In both cases, freedom becomes a branding strategy rather than a democratic practice.
For those concerned with truly independent journalism and genuinely democratic education, the lesson is clear. Speech is never just about speech. It is about ownership, power, and who bears the consequences when truth becomes inconvenient.
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 global higher education landscape is increasingly shaped by conflicts, diplomacy, and shifting regional alliances. The relationships among Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), South Sudan, and the Israel-Palestine conflict highlight the interconnections between geopolitics, humanitarian crises, and the responsibilities of universities as institutions of knowledge, ethics, and justice. These contexts influence not only student mobility and research collaboration but also institutional priorities, funding flows, and academic freedom. Understanding the intersection of geopolitics and higher education is essential for institutions seeking to engage globally with integrity, equity, and impact.
For scholars and administrators, these regions exemplify the challenge of balancing opportunity and risk. Research and student engagement opportunities abound in humanitarian crises, fragile states, and post-conflict zones, yet these are embedded in complex political and ethical landscapes. Additionally, the growing pressures on American universities to navigate internal censorship, legislative constraints, and donor-influenced agendas have profound implications for their global credibility and ability to engage abroad. This article explores each of these regions in depth, examines the cross-cutting implications for higher education, and discusses the domestic pressures in U.S. higher education that shape international engagement.
Saudi Arabia and Yemen
The war in Yemen has devastated the nation, creating one of the most severe humanitarian crises in recent history. Civilian infrastructure has been destroyed, millions of people have been displaced, and famine and disease threaten vast swathes of the population. Saudi Arabia, as the leading actor in the coalition intervening in Yemen, has faced both international criticism and pressure to negotiate. Recent diplomatic initiatives have suggested that Riyadh may be seeking to recalibrate its involvement, including attempts to engage Houthi representatives in peace talks. For higher education institutions, these shifts have important implications for student mobility, research opportunities, and refugee education programs. Yemen's crisis represents not only a humanitarian emergency but also a research frontier in global health, humanitarian logistics, and post-conflict educational reconstruction.
Saudi Arabia’s position on Israel adds another layer of complexity for global academic partnerships. The Kingdom continues to insist that it will not normalize relations with Israel without the establishment of a Palestinian state. This position affects regional alliances, funding priorities, and the willingness of other states to engage in collaborative academic initiatives. For universities, this reality translates into both opportunities and constraints. Scholarship programs, research funding, and institutional partnerships linked to Saudi Arabia may be influenced by the Kingdom’s foreign policy priorities. Institutions engaging with Yemen must navigate a humanitarian context that is deeply intertwined with the diplomatic posturing of a regional superpower.
The United Arab Emirates
The UAE has emerged as a significant regional actor, leveraging economic strength to expand its influence across Africa, the Red Sea corridor, and the Middle East. Its normalisation with Israel through the Abraham Accords marked a historic diplomatic shift in Arab-Israeli relations, yet the UAE has simultaneously articulated clear objections to unilateral Israeli annexation plans in the West Bank. In Africa, the UAE has deepened ties with South Sudan and other fragile states through financial agreements, including banking cooperation and long-term oil-backed loans. These interventions exemplify how foreign investment, diplomacy, and regional security concerns intersect in ways that directly affect higher education.
For universities, the UAE represents both opportunity and caution. Institutions can engage with new funding streams, branch campuses, and international partnerships facilitated by Gulf state investment. At the same time, ethical considerations are paramount. Funding sources tied to conflict zones, extractive economic deals, or contested geopolitical agendas require careful institutional scrutiny. Universities must develop frameworks that incorporate conflict sensitivity, ethical risk assessment, and transparency. The UAE’s dual role as a facilitator of academic mobility and a participant in contested geopolitical spaces underscores the complexity of engagement in regions influenced by external power.
South Sudan
South Sudan, the world’s youngest nation, has struggled to stabilize since its independence in 2011. Recurring conflict, economic dependence on oil, and weak governance structures have hindered the development of higher education infrastructure. Agreements with the UAE, including long-term oil-backed loans and financial cooperation, highlight the influence of foreign investment on the state’s trajectory and, by extension, its educational system.
For higher education, South Sudan presents both a critical research site and an urgent development need. Universities can contribute to capacity-building, curriculum development, and scholarship programs for displaced or return diaspora students. Research in post-conflict governance, peace studies, and resource management can inform broader academic understanding of fragile states. Yet these opportunities come with ethical and practical complexities. Partnerships with South Sudanese institutions must navigate the implications of resource-linked foreign investment, the risk of perpetuating inequality, and the fragility of governance structures. Universities engaging in South Sudan must balance their commitment to education with a nuanced understanding of political and economic realities.
Israel and Palestine
The Israel-Palestine conflict continues to shape the global higher education discourse, affecting student mobility, refugee education, research collaborations, and institutional partnerships. Saudi Arabia’s insistence that normalization with Israel is contingent upon Palestinian statehood and East Jerusalem as its capital remains a critical point of leverage in regional diplomacy. The UAE, despite having normalized with Israel, continues to assert that Israeli annexation of the West Bank represents a “red line” that could destabilize the region.
For universities, this context presents both opportunities and ethical challenges. Engaging with Palestinian students, hosting refugee scholars, and conducting research on human rights and humanitarian crises are vital areas of academic intervention. At the same time, institutions must navigate funding sources, regional political sensitivities, and reputational risks. Academic freedom in research on Israel and Palestine is often contested, both abroad and domestically in the United States, where political and donor pressures shape what research is feasible, safe, or fundable.
Censorship and Academic Freedom in U.S. Higher Education
Recent developments in American higher education highlight the fragility of academic freedom, which directly affects international engagement. Surveys indicate that over one-third of U.S. faculty perceive a decline in academic freedom, and approximately 70% report self-censorship on topics such as the Israel-Palestine conflict. Legislation in several states, framed under terms like “viewpoint diversity” or “campus neutrality,” imposes constraints on curriculum, speech, faculty tenure, and university governance. These pressures are compounded by donor influence, administrative oversight, and the politicization of higher education.
Censorship and self-censorship are not abstract concerns; they have tangible impacts on research agendas, global partnerships, and the capacity of universities to host refugee or international scholars. Institutions with programs in global health, humanitarian response, Middle East studies, or post-conflict development must contend with domestic pressures that may limit the scope of inquiry or public engagement. The erosion of academic freedom in the United States thus has a direct effect on the credibility and effectiveness of universities abroad, as it mirrors, in some respects, the constraints faced by institutions in fragile or authoritarian states.
Cross-Cutting Themes
Several themes cut across these regional and domestic contexts. First, conflict and displacement in Yemen, South Sudan, and Palestine create urgent educational needs for refugees and internally displaced scholars. Universities must develop programs that provide access, mentorship, and flexible pathways to education. Second, foreign investment and resource-linked funding—from the UAE in South Sudan to Saudi-backed initiatives in Yemen—underscore the ethical complexities of international partnerships. Transparency, due diligence, and conflict-sensitive frameworks are essential. Third, diplomatic realignments, including the Abraham Accords and evolving Saudi-Israel relations, create new corridors for collaboration but also introduce geopolitical risk. Fourth, domestic censorship and political pressures in the U.S. affect research capacity, ethical engagement, and the freedom to examine contentious topics, directly influencing global credibility.
Finally, structural inequality and systemic injustice are central concerns. Funding flows, research agendas, and student access are all mediated by power structures that can perpetuate inequities. Universities must be conscious of whose voices are amplified, whose perspectives are sidelined, and how partnerships with conflict-affected states influence the production of knowledge. Ethical global engagement requires institutions to address these imbalances proactively.
References & Sources
PEN America, “New Report Unveils Alarming Tactics in Censorship of Higher Education,” pen.org
Times of India, “Is Academic Freedom on the Decline? 35% of US College Professors Say Yes,” timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Times of Israel, “Faculty Survey Reveals Fear, Self-Censorship at US Universities,” timesofisrael.com
Associated Press, “Under Threat from Trump, Columbia University Agrees to Policy Changes,” apnews.com
The Guardian, “US Universities’ Faculty Unite to Defend Academic Freedom After Trump’s Attacks,” theguardian.com
Le Monde, “UC Berkeley, the US Capital of Free Speech, Stands Firm Against Trump,” lemonde.fr
.png)