Yves here. Rajiv Sethi outlines why the Trump efforts to destroy US higher education can only be partly checked via litigation, even assuming the universities win all their cases. Sethi offers Norway using its sovereign wealth fund to bulk up as an academic magnet. This is creative but far fetched.
Sethi also mentions, “The faculty are the beating heart of every university.” Yet irresponsible boards allowed the adminisphere to rule the roost, pushing DEI and speech conformity initiatives beyond the level most academics would have implemented. These campaigns justified more adminsphere empire-building and assertions of their importance. There is a book to be written about this stealth takeover by administrators and how faculties were outflanked. But their negligence in beating back this competing power center is big part of why university costs spiked, making it much more of a class-based system than before. That plus the visibility and aggressive policing of wokeism made it an easy target. Mind you, Vance would have made the attack he did below regardless, but the universities erred massively by adopting and enforcing a world-view of “inclusivity” that largely excluded the working class and was openly hostile to white men.1
By Rajiv Sethi, professor of economics at Barnard College. Originally published at his website
None of the blows that have been inflicted on American higher education over the past few months were unanticipated. Every single one of them—the cancellation of grants and contracts, the suspension of visa issuance, the filing of civil and criminal complaints, and the withdrawal of accreditation—were explicitly predicted months before the administration took office.
Furthermore, these initiatives have all been taken in service of a vision that was clearly articulated four years ago:
“There is no way for a conservative to accomplish our vision of society unless we’re willing to strike at the heart of the beast. That’s the universities… Unless we’re willing to de-institutionalize the left in those institutions—or destroy the institutionsabsent that—we are going to continue to make the most powerful academic actors in our society actively aligned against us. The only way to work is to actually take some of these institutions over.”
These remarks were made by JD Vance on a podcast episode; similar sentiments were expressed in a more formal setting a few months later. This was well before the attacks of October 7, and the encampments, building occupations, and classroom disruptions that followed.
Consistent with this bleak vision, our leading research universities are in the process of being taken over under threat of being destroyed. The claims that they are hotbeds of antisemitism or unwitting agents of foreign influence, whatever their merits, are clearly pretextual.
Furthermore, there is little that can be done through litigation to interrupt this process. Some of the most consequential federal decisions lie outside the scope of judicial review. A court might prevent the cancellation of existing grants or the revocation of previously-issued visas, but cannot force funding agencies or consular officials to approve any specific application in the future. And the messages being sent to funding agencies at home and embassies abroad are crystal clear.
If the administration continues along this path, American leadership in higher education will be lost for good. Faculty will be up for grabs in a global marketplace for scholars, and students will follow them wherever they land. And if a critical mass assembles in one particular region, agglomeration effects could fuel its rise and entrench its position. This is how American dominance of this sector (as well as the motion picture, software, and live theater industries) was established in the first place.
There has been a lot of attention recently to the possibility that the major beneficiary of this unraveling will be China, which is aggressively pursuing scholars and students. For example, the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology has instituted“unconditional offers, streamlined admission procedures, and academic support” for all current Harvard undergraduates seeking to transfer, as well as those holding confirmed offers of acceptance. And a Nobel laureate who had a federal grant frozen received an offer of twenty years of guaranteed funding at “any city, any university” of his choice within hours of posting his concerns on social media.
There have indeed been some high profile departures of scholars from the US to China, but I suspect that this particular pathway will be traveled largely by those in scientific and technical fields, and those who already have social connections in the region. What China cannot offer under current conditions, especially to scholars in the humanities and social scientists, is a commitment to academic freedom that faculty value immensely, and that is essential for their work.
If China cannot displace the United States atop the global higher education hierarchy, who can?
There are really two quite separate components to American dominance of this sector—a research infrastructure that draws aspiring scholars, and a broad and deep four-year degree that attracts academically inclined high school students. The connection between these components is tight, and our leading universities cater to both types of demands. The graduate divisions generate a steady stream of research-focused academics, as well as a population of teacher-scholars who join undergraduate-facing institutions. If some other country or region is to truly challenge American leadership in higher education, it will have to build on both these fronts.
In an earlier post (and a podcast appearance) I argued that the only country that has both the resources and the capacity to make credible commitments regarding academic freedom is Norway. The country is small, with fewer people than New York City, but its sovereign wealth fund is larger than the combined endowments of all American universities. Together with its Scandinavian neighbors, it has very deep roots in higher education and scholarly inquiry. If it chooses to make major investments in a system of undergraduate colleges and research universities based on the American model, the returns over the next few decades would be substantial.
Some defenders of the administration’s actions against Harvard have argued that other American universities “can be the recipients of talent and ideas… the beneficiaries of Harvard’s misfortune.” But this misunderstands the position in which faculty find themselves. If the goal really is to take over or destroy American universities, then all of them are potential targets. Some will be taken over, and some destroyed. From the perspective of most faculty, a loss of institutional autonomy is tantamount to destruction. Moving from one institution to another facing comparable risks makes little sense.
The faculty are the beating heart of every university. They are the magnets attracting undergraduate students and aspiring researchers from every corner of the world. Where they go, others will follow. Germany surrendered its leadership of the research frontier by purging faculty on ethnic and political grounds. I fear that we are on the precipice of following this abominable example.
American universities are hardly beyond reproach, and there are many legitimate reasons for the cratering of public confidence in them. But they are also engaged in serious reflection and reform, not all of it in response to external pressures. And they really are a jewel in our economic crown, fueling productivity growth and generating significant service exports. The federal government is powerful enough to destroy them, and to scatter their remains worldwide. But doing so would be a strategic blunder of historic proportions.
_____
1 I trust I do not have to prove this point. I am not about to track it down, but I recall reading 5-10 years ago that amounted to declaring any man guilty in a conversation with a women due to the history of rape and gender oppression, that the dynamics of domination were ever and always present. This was not that extreme a view by the standards of the day.
22 comments
Comments are closed.
There is one; The Fall of the Faculty by Benjamin Ginsberg
Must add to my list, thanks!
I know that the US is the leader in public relations about its higher education, and also is thIne leader in generating lists purporting to show the superiority of its institutions of higher education.
But does this make it the leader in higher education?
I am myself an English lecturer at a South African “bush college”, where the campaign against the humanities is extremely vigorous (we are essentially told that we could be replaced by ChatGBT without loss). In my experience, here and at all other institutions I have worked at, “academic freedom” in the humanities amounts to repeating whatever fad was doing the rounds at the time when the most senior academic was studying. I do believe that the humanities can serve an important function for analysing and reforming society and the individuals which make it up, but I do not think that this is possible in modern universities, and I suspect that Chinese universities are not significantly worse in this regard than Western universities.
The veery top US unis have attracted the children of global elites. They usually have gotten top tier eduction before applying to college. Whether they are truly able, as opposed to merely pretty bright and polished to a very high sheen, is clearly a matter of debate.
I recall the children of to Iranians in my day shunned Harvard and went to MIT as the much more serious school.
The US until recently had a top position in science and medical research. Global rankings in 2024 put Harvard as the top university in the world. Rich Saudis come to the US, for instance, for difficult medical procedures like brain surgery or treatments of advanced cancers; by contrast, more of them will go to places like Thailand for more routine procedures like stents. I have a lot of minor anomalies in my structure and the only place I would consider getting a knee replacement, given it would take very careful modeling, would be the Hospital for Special Surgery, which is a NYC orthopedics research hospital and ranked #1 in the US for over two decades in orthopedics. They had to model over 100 parts for my hips and my doctor even then had to modify the ones he chose. Most hospitals don’t carry remotely that many parts.
I recently retired from a position in philosophy and politics, and let me assure readers, that when our esteemed author says this: “What China cannot offer under current conditions, especially to scholars in the humanities and social scientists, is a commitment to academic freedom that faculty value immensely, and that is essential for their work”, he is speaking nonsense, or something worse if he thinks he is characterizing my erstwhile colleagues, or, indeed, China, if the invitation to talk my political/philosophical climate doomerism at a prominent Provincial (Shaanxi) Normal offers any evidence. Still, he is a Professor of Economics.
I found your quoted sentence very odd myself. Would there be the academic freedom to do major studies on class in America with its implication to tax policies, a study on the position of racism in modern-day Israel, a study on which corporations receive Federal money and not having to do anything in return. Well, you get the idea. It’s all a variation of that old idea that if you want to see who really has power in society, see which groups you are not allowed to criticize.
Exactly what is so special about the Harvard admissions process that it filters out ‘talent’ globally sought after? China’s strategy is akin in economics to scooping up disgruntled millionaires from the first world so that it might prop-up its economy.
It does not have to filter better. Its brand name heretofore has given it great advantage in attracting “talented” applicants. So if you have an arguably better or perceived to be better poll, the stringency of the screening matters less.
I recall years ago when Harvard was less competitive than it has become in the last decade, that admissions could chose multiple entering classes (in terms of size) and have them all be substantively the same in terms of chops (test scores, GPAs, awards, etc). Recall the top US unis make a point of knowing all the elite (both private and public) and the next tier (good but not great) so as to calibrate what the GPAs amount to.
I think that this interview by Joshua Citarella of the insightful Jennifer Pan informs the top comment by Yves Smith. This critique of DEI indicates how administrators have wrecked universities, although the managerialization (if that’s a word) of the universities has gone on for some fifty years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BitMUHgyJEI&t=3183s
In short, DEI is an emanation of the managerial state, not so much a moral stance.
In my case, my Maroon Alma Mater was being taken over by the econ department while I was there, as the university ballyhooed its many econ-pseudo-Nobelists/Swedishbankprizers. The rise of the business school (now called “Booth,” in donor-naming frenzy) coincides. We’re talking the 1970s.
It culminated in the foundation of the Becker Friedman Institute (for research into phony “theories” of economics). And you thought that the University of Laputa was fictional.
So U.S. universities have been smashing down creativity for years and years: Let’s not pretend that the social sciences and humanities have been crucibles of freedom. The social sciences and humanities in the US of A are now lousy with the flimsiest theories imaginable.
Noting: The difficulty for a scholar of humanities isn’t that China is repressive: The limits would be culture and language. It would be hard for a scholar of Edith Wharton or U.S. theater or Howard Hawks to have much influence from China.
Do my comments justify the current repression by the feds of Harvard, of Columbia, and more discreetly, of Maroon U.? No. J.D. Vance is clueless on education (as well as on religious matters). Trump is seeking a redistribution of power, *not* “Let a thousand flowers bloom, a hundred schools of thought contend.”
Yet Columbia was so embedded in sleazy politics and in its subservience to the powerful that it put Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland on the faculty. Both of whom – who supposedly Speak Truth to Power – have fallen silent of late. Curious, isn’t it?
An old prof of mine, Bruce Lincoln, a Marxist teaching in the Divinity School (!), led the fight against the Becker Friedman Institute:
a scholar of Edith Wharton
Jin Li, Edith Wharton review, Perspectives of The Age of Innocence: The Embedded Values in the Chinese Translation.
In other words, the likes of China are happy to attract the STEM talent, but have far less use for the H&SS folks. Let Norway take them if it wishes.
The main attraction for foreign students in American universities is a chance to work in an anglophone environment, and master a language which they will have to use in almost any conceivable PMC-style job. Anyone planning on an academic career has to be able to write and lecture in English if they are to have any hope of reaching a mass audience. (Some European universities allow even their own nationals to submit theses in English.) More important than teaching posts is the constant flow of undergraduates and postgraduates to American universities for their semester or year abroad, and it’s primarily this that has infected European universities with Wokism. Likewise, a period of teaching abroad for a young lecturer is an enormous career advantage, and by far the most popular destination for this is the US.
It’s hard to see the advantages of size and language being reproduced elsewhere. French universities some years ago started offering courses entirely in English to attract foreign students, especially exchange students from the US, but that requires lecturers and administrators fluent in English, which is very often not the case. In any event, unless you are a native bilingual, you are not , as say, a Portuguese Master’s student going to learn German to do your degree in Germany: that will be in English, which is the de facto language of international academia today.
Many scholars who fled to the US did so for better living and teaching conditions, and easier access to research grants. That looks like changing, but you’ll see more of a denationalisation of academia than the move to another focal area.
Interesting, thanks. Those of us who have never been enthusiastic linguists welcome such evidence of cultural kowtow. On the other hand the spread of American ideas as opposed to words hasn’t been very beneficial so perhaps those of us would be wrong. It could be time we Americans learn Mandarin and even here in the boonies the local day school teaches it, giving a future career leg up to such scholars.
Trump in his wisdom is accelerating the process…..
The ability of the best US Universities to attract the cream of international students is still off the charts. My nephew did his MSc in Oxford (physics) and PhD in Cambridge, but had multiple offers with scholarships to go to the US – he spent a semester in Cornel and a summer in Stanford along with some of his fellow postgrads and said the number of contacts he and his friends made in terms of jobs, business opportunities and academic offers was beyond anything possible in any other country.
A mandarin speaking friend has worked for tech colleges here in recruitment for 3 decades, mostly recruiting in Asia – she tells me there are a wide number of attractions, but as you say, English speaking is still the key reason why so many students opt for US/UK/Australia. Ireland is seen as a somewhat cheaper but pretty good option (although the joke is that many think they are going to Iceland and dress accordingly when they get off the flight). Most of the students she meets at the education fairs in Taipei and mainland China are only interested in English speaking countries. Of course, many international students are just visa hunting – its difficult to really burrow into the numbers – what really matters to a countries economy is the overall quality. I’m told by my neighbour, a Shanghainese girl doing a PhD in finance that there is a lot of interest now among the better Chinese students in Scandinavia, particularly as Sweden offers permanent visas for PhD’s. Many are on provincial government schemes to do post grads in English speaking countries – they will study, go home to do their required stint back working in China, but will do their best to return – the visa issue is a key one for them. Every Chinese student I’ve ever talked to about this is utterly contemptuous about the quality of third level education in China (not an unbiased sample I’m sure).
Plenty of universities, especially in smaller countries now offer English language courses and exams for exactly the reason you outline. There are excellent universities in South Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, etc., which focus on foreign students. Hong Kong has always been strong in that area. One Irish university now even has campuses in Malaysia and is opening one in Hanoi – the attraction of a ‘Western’ degree is still very strong (especially in medicine), even if the course is held in Asia.
I had assumed that Brexit and the general degradation of UK universities would reduce their attractiveness, but according to the figures I’ve seen, they attract as much, if not more, international students than ever (I don’t know if the quality of students has changed). Inertia is important – once somewhere gets a good reputation, it takes a lot to shake that (the opposite is also true of course). Trump, and the general crapification of US colleges, will undoubtedly do some damage, but its likely that the major beneficiaries will be roughly equivalent colleges in either other English speaking countries, or in elite universities in Europe and Asia or indeed, Russia, which has always valued educations soft power.
Also interesting but then how much of college is about learning anyway and how much about the networking and the credentials and the, you say, visas?
Perhaps the real issue is that America loses by keeping out the foreign and of course those universities lose the money. Trump keeps shooting himself in the foot and may need extras.
You disaffected scholars and academics are being welcomed here in Canada’s institutions with open arms – we are the new land of freedom and we also speak English.
One should be selective though, like it is done with the immigration policy. Not being selective you end up with the likes of Timothy Snider.
I’ve been thinking Harvard could respond to the Trump admin with a 2nd university campus in exile, perhaps nearby in Quebec or New Brunswick (if those provinces and Ottawa were open to the idea). I imagined these campuses would be linked virtually so students could go to classes of either campus.
However the philosophy behind Trumps attack on academia is not just aimed at Ivy league schools, it is all of academia. As a few comments say, it is about power and control of the curriculum.
Perhaps a more likely successful strategy would be a hybrid of some sort. And a global university. Maybe virtual online classes for the first 2 years, similar to the community college model, (yet out of control of national governments) followed by some specialization (a major). This could be done in person at an institution that had sufficient academic freedom to be able to function.
This could be a joint venture between a few nation states and various institutions.
China’s nuclear weapons were created by Chinese scientists expelled from the United States. Although few people would rather study in China than in the U.S. or Europe, Chinese science would advance greatly if scientists who studied at prestigious U.S. universities returned home.
The purpose of the TrumpAdmin’s attacks on Harvard, etc. is decapitation strikes against the sources and places of advanced culture and civilization. ( Sneering cynics can have their little fun debating about whether Harvard etc. are really any such thing. The TrumpAdmin thinks they are and is acting accordingly).
Part of the reason is to pre-empt any viable opposition which might emerge and part of it is to economicall/culturally/socially disable the “blue zones” where these Universities are felt to reside.
It is also to satisfy the spite and envy of Trump and his MAGAnazi base who resent the existence of people and institutions who might think they are smarter and better than Trump and the MAGAnazis. Or who Trump and the MAGAnazis even suspect of thinking that.
MABA . Make America Backward Again
MASA Make America Stupid Again.
Passing the science/culture/etc. lead to China is fine with Trump and his MAGAnazis, just so long as that lead isn’t in America anymore.
It needs to be pointed out that since about the 1990s Big Finance greatly increased the costs of US young people going to a US university. Those loans that were handed out left graduates with immense Debt. We can’t even count how many young veterinarians, doctors and dentists are forced to pay off those loans, causing them to lose much of their salaries.
Only the few wealthy families can now afford the costs of those loans.
The rumor goes that some young folks have caught on and are moving to Western Euope where they can be well educated, minus the Huge Burden of college costs.