When Donald Trump first threatened to use the power of the presidency against a university, I found myself in the crosshairs. As the chancellor of UC Berkeley, I witnessed the cancellation of an appearance by alt-right figure Milo Yiannopoulos due to violent protests. Despite the chaos caused by outside activists, peace was eventually restored thanks to the efforts of the police. Post-incident, Yiannopoulos criticized the university for the cancellation. However, my concern grew when Trump tweeted on February 2, 2017, suggesting cutting federal funds if the university did not uphold free speech and prevented violence.
At that time, I underestimated the gravity of Trump’s threat. American universities did not provoke the challenges faced during the second Trump administration. Nevertheless, they could have been better prepared had they advocated for their significance and rectified their shortcomings proactively. Following the Yiannopoulos incident and Trump’s tweet, I feared the financial strain of heightened security measures and recurring clashes on campus. Berkeley’s dedication to free speech implied more confrontations were imminent, especially as Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter were planning return visits.
The university spent millions fortifying its grounds, and clashes between pro- and anti-Trump factions persisted. While Trump’s initial administration did not significantly target higher education, universities faced persistent scrutiny for alleged biases. Unbeknownst to me, the administration laid the groundwork for a broader assault on American universities, framing them as a threat to free speech. Across states, legislation mirroring the Goldwater Institute’s model emerged, ostensibly to protect free speech but also imposing strict rules on campus protests.
Criticism of universities intensified among Republican politicians, with calls to challenge the education system. The escalation signified a campaign against academia, as highlighted in a 2021 speech by J. D. Vance. This narrative culminated in an ongoing war on universities, threatening their autonomy and the principles of free speech.
Trump’s policies are severely impacting the field of science, particularly by reducing funding for essential components of university research, such as scientific infrastructure and lab support. This is leading to significant setbacks in biomedical research nationwide, with universities cutting down on graduate programs and rescinding offers due to budget cuts. The decision to cancel federal grants to universities like Columbia is further exacerbating the situation.
The attack on universities is most apparent in the effort to eliminate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The Department of Education’s recent warning against using race in various aspects of university life has raised concerns about the potential loss of federal funding for non-compliance. This poses a serious threat to the future of universities and their ability to serve the public good.
In response to conservative criticism, universities must do more to communicate their valuable contributions to society, emphasizing their role in technological advancements and global leadership. Additionally, university administrators need to acknowledge and address valid criticisms regarding issues like free speech and academic freedom, which have contributed to a decline in public support.
The growth of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion offices has raised concerns about administrative overreach and inefficiency, highlighting the need for a reassessment of these initiatives. It is essential for universities to balance the values of diversity and inclusion with concerns about effectiveness and accountability in order to maintain their crucial role in addressing global challenges and fostering innovation.
In discussions about power dynamics in academic settings, some argued for universities to support those without power and restrict the speech of the powerful to create a more equitable environment. Concerns about prejudice manifesting in everyday interactions, sometimes unintentionally, became a priority for administrators, leading to the development of speech codes and protocols. A new concept of “harm” emerged, triggering conflicts over speech and resulting in measures to censor, punish, or “cancel” individuals within the university community.
Tensions escalated during protests following the events of October 7, 2023, further exacerbating existing disagreements on free speech, open dialogue, and civil discourse within campuses. As the Chancellor of Berkeley, there were calls from students and faculty to disinvite speakers like Yiannopoulos and Coulter. Despite concerns about censorship, I stressed the importance of upholding free speech to safeguard the university’s principles of open inquiry and academic freedom.
Now, fears about restrictions on free speech within academia being exploited have materialized, with the new administration targeting the use of race in diversity and inclusion efforts. This extends beyond admissions and hiring practices, encroaching on curriculum content and contradicting purported commitments to free expression. The assault on campus activism and diversity initiatives marks just the beginning of a broader agenda.
Governor Ron DeSantis has already approved legislation restricting certain academic disciplines in Florida’s public universities, hinting at potential controls on subjects like climate science, biology, and evolution. The broader strategy to reshape universities goes beyond current actions.
Preserving federal backing for scientific research and student financial aid is crucial to upholding the social contract established in the postwar era, emphasizing the importance of widespread university education and scientific advancement in America. The exceptional quality of U.S. research universities, attracting top talent globally, took decades to establish but could be eroded rapidly.
Leaders in higher education must reaffirm the significance of research universities and defend them against threats to their core values of knowledge, science, and truth. While attempts to undermine universities may face backlash, the potential damage is substantial. Resisting efforts to undermine and penalize universities for their dedication to knowledge and science is imperative in safeguarding the integrity of higher education.
Ensure that promises made are upheld for the defense to have a shot at prevailing against the ongoing attack. This article was first published in The Atlantic.
