Social Trump Going After Academic Autonomy

You're forgetting the humanities and arts.

As disciplines where the scholar's political leanings aren't out in the open? I agree.

Unless their area is specifically something like Marxist or feminist theory, you wouldn't be able to tell a literature professor's preferences.
 
As disciplines where the scholar's political leanings aren't out in the open? I agree.

Unless their area is specifically something like Marxist or feminist theory, you wouldn't be able to tell a literature professor's preferences.

I mean the contrary, in these fields very often you can see political orientation from the scholar's research and publications. Gender studies, race studies, comp lit, cultural studies, political theory, and arts are most often quite transparent in their political orientation from the subject and theoretical framework. I don't think this is inherently a bad thing.
 
I mean the contrary, in these fields very often you can see political orientation from the scholar's research and publications. Gender studies, race studies, comp lit, cultural studies, political theory, and arts are most often quite transparent in their political orientation from the subject and theoretical framework. I don't think this is inherently a bad thing.

In those sub-fields, yeah. But I'd guess that they make up the minority of the areas in an average English department. In undergrad, I remember taking Comp 1 and Comp 2, Intro to Fiction, Film Appreciation, and History of Art and getting zero political content or commentary. And I went to a big, public university in a big, urban area.

It can be a bad thing because it provides fodder for the right and their current de-valuation of academia. I mean, we got guys here claiming that there aren't many conservatives in academia because progressives discriminate against them. Like, there's this mass of right-wing intellectuals just dying to break into academia but are kept away because liberal professors don't like what they said about Trump or something.
 
In those sub-fields, yeah. But I'd guess that they make up the minority of the areas in an average English department. In undergrad, I remember taking Comp 1 and Comp 2, Intro to Fiction, Film Appreciation, and History of Art and getting zero political content or commentary. And I went to a big, public university in a big, urban area.

It can be a bad thing because it provides fodder for the right and their current de-valuation of academia. I mean, we got guys here claiming that there aren't many conservatives in academia because progressives discriminate against them. Like, there's this mass of right-wing intellectuals just dying to break into academia but are kept away because liberal professors don't like what they said about Trump or something.

English is a field that has a vaster array of approaches, but make no mistake: the contemporary humanities are currently very strongly shaped by theoretical trends that have direct alignment with political progressivism or revolutionary thought: decolonial theory, critical race theory, critical theory, third-wave feminism, intersectionality studies, post-structuralism, cultural studies, Marxian analysis, Lacanian approaches, the Slovenian school, Foucaultian genealogies, postcolonial theories, indigeneity studies, performativity theory, new materialisms, ecocriticism...

These are the trends that are currently in demand, because youth culture tends to align with what they perceieve are the most progressive and revolutionary trends of their time. What today is named "woke culture" largely stems from the appropriation of various tenets from these theoretical sources into popular culture and politics by the youth. Similar things happened in the 60s with for example existentialism, phenomenology, Marxism, Frankfurt school, the theology of liberation, dependency theory, worlds systems theory...

There is definitely a nefarious side to this: on the one hand, conservatives feel they are at a relative disadvantage when competing for positions, and uneasy to voice their views in fear of censorship; on the other hand, the prevalence of these fields means that other orientations of research get neglected, and so scholars that do not draw from these dominant sources get unduly ignored, left or right winged.

It's a bit of a feedback loop: the universities hire people and offer courses on these topics, and students want them. It's not so much ideology as it is market demand.

But the right-wing argument is actually a moot point, because historically every sector of academia across the globe across history has leaned progressive and left. Why? Because historically intellectuals, scientists, philosophers, writers, artists, have been on the avant-garde of thought and aesthetic expression, and have faced repression and censorship on the hands of conservatism. Burning philosophers at the stake is no longer acceptable, but deporting students and people into Salvadorean prisons for voicing pro-Palestine positions are all due and welcome, as is control of academic discourse. Of course, woke culture engaged in its own form of discourse-regulation. The borders between not accepting racism, xenophobia, misogyny, and infringing upon freedom of expression is not easy to adjudicate. By definition, making certain actions and expressions unacceptable or even illegal is a restriction on liberty. Does that make it bad in itself? That's a larger question.

Take a single field, philosophy and political theory. Look at the 20th Century. Just how many of the most important developments came from leftist thinkers? Almost all of them, with a few notable exceptions like Heidegger, the neoliberal tradition, and Leo Strauss. Other than that, phenomenology, logical positivism, vitalism, existentialism, historicism, Marxism, structuralism and poststructuralism, hermeneutics, Frankfurt school critical theory, neopragmatism, psychoanalysis, genealogical analysis, deconstruction, orientalism, feminism... all of these fields were developed and studied predominantly by left leaning intellectuals. There simply isn't a comparable body of work by right wing theorists that inspire new generations, and so it is no surprise that they are a tiny minority in the academy, nevermind selective hiring or ideological bent.

If meritocracy is the benchmark, the right simply has not produced the same quality and quantity of work, and there simply is not a comparable number of conservatives at the cutting edge of research across fields. And again, there are historical reasons for that that cannot be explained by today's culture wars, let alone American political bipartisan polarization.

Today, there are some very interesting right-winged thinkers in the field of political theory and philosophy: Curtis Yarvin, Patri Friedman, and above all Nick Land, are extremely stimulating thinkers, and as a result they have had a great deal of influence. Their critique of the contemporary left is powerful as well. But these remain marginal, exceptional cases.
 
Last edited:
In those sub-fields, yeah. But I'd guess that they make up the minority of the areas in an average English department. In undergrad, I remember taking Comp 1 and Comp 2, Intro to Fiction, Film Appreciation, and History of Art and getting zero political content or commentary. And I went to a big, public university in a big, urban area.

It can be a bad thing because it provides fodder for the right and their current de-valuation of academia. I mean, we got guys here claiming that there aren't many conservatives in academia because progressives discriminate against them. Like, there's this mass of right-wing intellectuals just dying to break into academia but are kept away because liberal professors don't like what they said about Trump or something.

Step one: Claim an institution is discriminating against conservatives.

Step two: Destroy the institution.
 

Nearly 300 apply as French university offers US academics ‘scientific asylum’​

Aix-Marseille University generates interest amid a US crackdown and calls for a ‘scientific refugee’ status

Ashifa Kassam European community affairs correspondent

Nearly 300 academics have applied to a French university’s offer to take in US-based researchers rattled by the American government’s crackdown on academia, as a former French president called for the creation of a “scientific refugee” status for academics in peril.

Earlier this year, France’s Aix-Marseille University was among the first in Europe to respond to the funding freezes, cuts and executive orders unleashed on institutions across the US by Donald Trump’s administration.


What they were offering – through a programme titled Safe Place for Science – was a sort of “scientific asylum”, offering three years of funding at their facility for about 20 researchers.

On Thursday the university said it had received 298 applications in a month, of which 242 were deemed eligible. The applicants hailed from institutions such as Johns Hopkins University, Nasa, Columbia, Yale and Stanford, it said in a statement.


Most of the applications were sent using encrypted messaging, the university’s president, Eric Berton, wrote in the French newspaper Libération. “And with them came worrying, sometimes chilling, accounts from American researchers about the fate reserved for them by the Trump administration,” he said.

Most applicants were experienced researchers in fields that ranged from the humanities to life sciences and the environment, according to the university. Just over half of the eligible applicants, 135, were American, while 45 were dual nationals. More than a dozen French citizens also applied, as did Europeans, Indian nationals and Brazilians.

The university said the selection process would start in the coming days, with the aim of allowing researchers to begin arriving in early June.

François Hollande, a former president of France and a current Socialist MP, recently joined forces with Berton to call for France to recognise embattled researchers from around the world as refugees.

“Just like the expression of divergent opinions, their work, which is a source of innovation and knowledge, has become a risk for the propaganda of regimes,” the pair recently wrote in Libération.

Academics, much like journalists or political opponents, should be able to qualify for protection, they argued. “Indeed, current asylum mechanisms do not take into account the specificities of the academic environment and the threats facing scientists within authoritarian regimes,” they wrote. “This is why we are making an urgent request, one that is appropriate for the current situation: the creation of a ‘scientific refugee’ status.”


On Monday, Hollande backed his words with legislative action. In a bill tabled in the country’s national assembly, he proposed that researchers suffering attacks on their academic freedom be eligible for subsidiary protection – a category reserved for asylum seekers who do not meet the conditions for refugee status but who can demonstrate that they are facing serious threats.

Doing so would allow for faster and more efficient processing of these researchers, as officials could set out clear eligibility criteria and map out pathways to ensure that they would be able to continue their research.

Hollande described it as an “obligation”, particularly for researchers working in fields such as the climate crisis. “If they are interrupted, hindered, prevented, it will be a step backwards for humanity,” he told the broadcaster France Inter.

He described the bill – which must be approved by parliament – as a response to a historic moment. “It’s a symbolic way to show that France is an open country at a time when the United States is closing in on itself and authoritarian regimes are pursuing aggressive, repressive policies,” he said. “It’s about rediscovering the France of the Enlightenment, the one that in other times was capable of welcoming persecuted researchers from all over the world.”

https://www.theguardian.com/educati...ench-university-offer-to-take-in-us-academics
 
- Dont they get tax breaks because the important work they give back in return?

images
 
I like how the retards are like “blah blah word salad, how can Trump try to change these apolitical institutions “.

Meanwhile.

Go2d4WGa8AAH9Jm



And on top of that, you see the effort to ban books like to kill a mocking bird, and other classics, but utter hysteria of banning trans related books.

The left wingers acting like they are apolitical is the most disingenuous argument I may have ever seen.

You guys have lost the culture war, suck on it. It has nothing to do with “academic autonomy “. In fact, even suggesting such just shows how fucking stupid you are
 
It is well known that the large majority of academy faculty is progressive-liberal leaning, in literally every field of study, across all states and institutions, public or private. Many are independent, many are centrists. Few are republican.


In an attempt to try to police university autonomy and try to directly intervene admissions and hiring policy, and the operation of university life by student and community organizations, the government is threatening major educational institutions to pull funding unless several demands are met.


They want a reduction of the power of students and untenured faculty, faculty who engages in activism, and among tenured faculty giving prerogatives to senior faculty those who abide to the guidelines of the government.

"Harvard must make meaningful governance reform and restructuring to make possible major change consistent with this letter, including: fostering clear lines of authority and accountability; empowering tenured professors and senior leadership, and, from among the tenured professoriate and senior leadership, exclusively those most devoted to the scholarly mission of the University and committed to the changes indicated in this letter; reducing the power held by students and untenured faculty; reducing the power held by faculty (whether tenured or untenured) and administrators more committed to activism than scholarship"

Adjunct faculty, as is well known, are the most vulnerable economically in the academy, and work as contractual workers who are closely associated with unions and the most active members of syndicate struggles for what is truly a grossly underpaid sector of our education system (look at the salaries of adjunct professors and you will hardly believe what you see). And of course, by "those who engage more in activism than research" we know what they mean.

Additional provisions include, predictably, the dismantling of all DEI divisions, regardless of any assessment of performance or services provided, with no data or evaluation given with regard to why they are being forced to be shut down, and no indication as to how the services currently provided can be replaced or met otherwise. Of course, these are not only providing services for minorities, but are tracking active cases of racism, bigotry, abuse in campuses.

Admissions procedures are supposed to be 'meritocratically' decided and assessed by the government, ruling out criteria based on race, ethnicity, gender, or nationality. Of course, overwhelmingly, foreign students are against American republicanism, as are racial and gender minority groups. No indication of how metrics of evaluation (which are obviously field-discipline dependent) are supposed to function across hundreds of thousands of applicants and dozens of different expert disciplines by the Department of Education.

Needless to say, anyone with a morsel of cognitive prowess understands that this is not about meritocracy at all, which is a laudable ideal (which I agree has been lost in the American education system to worrying degrees), but rather about ideological control. Absolutely nothing, not one single sentence, describes any policy or measure proposed by the government to strengthen research and educational opportunities for students and faculty.

It is true that the universities (particularly the humanities) have strayed quite close to specific paradigms of research and thought that are very strongly sympathetic to contemporary leftist progressivism, like gender studies, literature departments, and cultural studies; but these cases, which compose the majority of the humanities and arts, represent (also worryingly) a relatively small sector of the academy, which has nothing to do with the work of the sciences and other fields like economics, medicine, law, etc. The 'woke' humanities are in actuality an extremely fringe phenomenon.

The proof? There is one exception to the pseudo-meritocratic standard that allows for discrimination:

They seek to enforce what is called viewpoint diversity. This obviously doesn't mean bringing in people who hold different views about quantum mechanics, or divergent views about epistemology in philosophy, Marxist and Liberal theories in economics, or making psychology departments equal parts behavioral and cognitive. Certainly not diverse viewpoints on the role of American interventionism or millitary support to Israel. That's not what they want.

What this means in this document is that they are trying to force hiring committees to bring in conservative-leaning faculty.

Put simply: the government wants to control the admissions and hiring procedure of every department and faculty, to turn it into a politically sympathetic domain. Of course, nothing is said about who would be carrying these evaluations or auditing, or how they propose to have experts for every single specialty and department. No indication of the criteria for evaluation either. It is evidently an attempt to try to gain ideological control over the academy by seizing their autonomy.

And last but not least, the forced dismantling of every single pro-Palestinian and Human Rights organizations, again hiring auditors to ensure compliance to the preservation of school order and American values.

It is worthy of note to see just exactly which institutions are being targeted.

"August 2025, the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit those programs and departments that most fuel antisemitic harassment or reflect ideological capture. The programs, schools, and centers of concern include but are not limited to the Divinity School, Graduate School of Education, School of Public Health, Medical School, Religion and Public Life Program, FXB Center for Health & Human Rights, Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Carr Center for Human Rights at the Harvard Kennedy School, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, and the Harvard Law School International Human Rights Clinic."

These are not just organizations of Palestinian students or Muslim adherents. They represent every single Human Rights and Public Health organization in the university, which are unanimously against the Israeli intervention in Gaza (as is every single international human rights agency in the world). Because, of course, being against the Israeli role in Gaza is, somehow, to be "anti-American" and "pro-Hamas", which is to say pro-terrorist.

Not a single similar provision is indicated or even recommended for Islamophobic institutions or actions in campuses targeted against the discrimination of other groups or minorities.

If Harvard does not comply to these demands, federal funding is threatened to be pulled by the billions. If this doesn't work, as Harvard seems to be playing hardball, accreditation hurdles will follow. The same is to be expected for every major university in the country, and then some.

The actual result? A decimation of departmental stability leading to the paralysis of research, admissions, and hirings. And a massive flight of intellectual capital from the end of both prospective students, faculty, and researchers.

I am at UCLA and also work at CSUSB and CalArts, and have colleagues and relatives in Cornell, NYU, New School, Berkeley, Princeton, Duke, and other institutions.

Most departments have essentially frozen all hirings for faculty until further notice. Many have rescinded offers from graduate students. All the hirings at the atmospheric science department at UCLA, for instance, have been suspended, and grants for research have across the board been paralyzed. Adjunct professors are in limbo across the board.

Since funding is completely up in the air and departments face a future of extreme economic and political volatility, facing censorship, intellectual control, and precarious funding, research initiatives are freezing and the academic labor market which was already in shambles is now further agonizing. Columbia already gave in.

The situation is even worse at public-state universities, which do not have the immense philanthropic revenue of institutions like Harvard or Columbia. In California, Sonoma, CSULB, and CSUSB, among others, are closing down departments and undertaking massive layoffs since the economic prospects have wilted. Across the board, researchers and prospective students are looking elsewhere since the future of the American academy, and intellectual freedom, is jeopardized.

Of course, there will be imbecilic, racist, homophobe shills who snort everything this government does who will applaud this as part of the amazing plan to make education "safe from woke ideology," and rooted in meritocratic American values.

There's a reason that almost every academic professor (*not necessarily the institution) leans liberal. It's simply the definition of the word liberal. It's almost a prerequisite to gaining new knowledge and insights - being open minded. Conservatives are inherently closed off to new ideas and seek to hold on to tradition and resist change.

You find the same in any academic, journalistic, scientific, etc., pursuit. People who usually hold a skill that requires a lot of knowledge are most always liberal. Now, once said people start acquiring a lot of money, they may then become a conservative, sure.
 
There's a reason that almost every academic professor (*not necessarily the institution) leans liberal. It's simply the definition of the word liberal. It's almost a prerequisite to gaining new knowledge and insights - being open minded. Conservatives are inherently closed off to new ideas and seek to hold on to tradition and resist change.

You find the same in any academic, journalistic, scientific, etc., pursuit. People who usually hold a skill that requires a lot of knowledge are most always liberal. Now, once said people start acquiring a lot of money, they may then become a conservative, sure.

Yeah, read my post above. Totally agreed.
 
Yeah, read my post above. Totally agreed.
I was just about to delete my post because I had responded to OP right when I read that, then started to read the thread and came across your excellent posts - stated much better than I.

Of course, you are not going to get any one of the MAGA to understand that. It's like they don't even understand the very definition of the words liberal and conservative.

Perhaps, we must accept that it is only inherent in their nature that they don't understand. If they did, they'd be a liberal. Memes are about the extent of their education.

The liberal media one is especially funny. Fox news and right wing "entertainment" literally dominate the media landscape. More than all other sources added together.
 
I was just about to delete my post because I had responded to OP right when I read that, then started to read the thread and came across your excellent posts - stated much better than I.

Of course, you are not going to get any one of the MAGA to understand that. It's like they don't even understand the very definition of the words liberal and conservative.

Perhaps, we must accept that it is only inherent in their nature that they don't understand. If they did, they'd be a liberal. Memes are about the extent of their education.

The liberal media one is especially funny. Fox news and right wing "entertainment" literally dominate the media landscape. More than all other sources added together.

I used to think being pedagogical and intellectually generous with people would be conducive to rational exchange. Because I think that a large part of the MAGA cult follows from the right taking advantage of the failures of the left, and above all the alienation of the white working class, the perceived excesses of 'woke' progressivism, and the overall failure of the Democratic party to offer a true novel alternative to mainstream political discourse. Trump filled all those gaps, exploiting xenophobia and through a crass populist nationalism, and a lot of people just see in him the hopes for representation.

But talking to people from the MAGA cult really revealed to me the extent to which people are actually racist, obscurantist, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic human garbage. I have no patience or willingness to be civil with people like that. It showed me that in fact it's not even about Trump, or policy, it's simply about a sense of victory. Politics is a sport, and they won. And because they won, the sewage lid is opened and people feel like they can get away with the most base, vitriolic forms of bigotry.
 
The left wingers acting like they are apolitical is the most disingenuous argument I may have ever seen.
Yup.

The funniest thing is that they think they're fooling anyone. Like there's not a trillion examples of them proving themselves to be left wing authoritarians. They're getting a taste of their own medicine, and they don't like it. They seem to not have the stomach for this game.
 
Yup.

The funniest thing is that they think they're fooling anyone. Like there's not a trillion examples of them proving themselves to be left wing authoritarians. They're getting a taste of their own medicine, and they don't like it. They seem to not have the stomach for this game.

Like look at the Claudine gay thing, where this DEI person has been making close to a million dollars per year, for years, partially funded by tac money.

Yet these people are crying that this is just a political hit job and these academics are gods honest truth of our most trusted institutions, oh my god, how can Trump do this!!

These are like 75-25% issues where most people are in agreement with Trump, despite what word salad these idiots come up with.

Crazy the hills these people are willing to die on. He is not even at 100 days and the left has clearly picked their fights and drawn battle lines. I think they have fallen into some traps and dog of war
 
Like look at the Claudine gay thing, where this DEI person has been making close to a million dollars per year, for years, partially funded by tac money.

Yet these people are crying that this is just a political hit job and these academics are gods honest truth of our most trusted institutions, oh my god, how can Trump do this!!

These are like 75-25% issues where most people are in agreement with Trump, despite what word salad these idiots come up with.

Crazy the hills these people are willing to die on. He is not even at 100 days and the left has clearly picked their fights and drawn battle lines. I think they have fallen into some traps and dog of war

Can I have a source that shows that the American population is 75% in favor of what Trump is doing in the universities?

Because I call bullshit. Better a word salad that speaks truth than a feces salad made up of lies.

What is very well documented is where academia stands on this shitshow.

So, the immense majority of the academic establishment are idiots, by inference? Including the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists, professors, researchers?

What does that make you, champ?

Hint: not an "independent" thinker.
 

Will Harvard Go Full Hillsdale?​

Harvard risks $2.2B in federal funds as it defies anti-discrimination mandates, drawing comparisons to Hillsdale's stand-alone model of rejecting government strings.


Harvard University has rejected various demands of a presidential commission on anti-Semitism.

The task force wants to persuade Harvard to ensure Jewish students on its campus are no longer harassed, or else lose its federal funding.

Harvard retorts that it won’t be bullied by Washington.

Among its other requirements, the Trump administration also warned Harvard to cease using race as a criterion in its admissions, hiring, and promotion, contrary to law.

And it also directed the campus to ban the use of masks that, in the post-COVID era of protests, have emboldened violent demonstrators with anonymity.

The administration’s order to stop race-based bias was in accordance with civil rights statutes, and a recent Supreme Court decision specifically banning affirmative action at Harvard and elsewhere.

No matter. Harvard claimed that the Trump administration infringed upon its First Amendment rights.

So, it has temporarily rejected the administration’s orders. At least for now, Harvard has lost its annual $2.2 billion grant of federal funds.

Former President Barack Obama, among others, lauded Harvard’s rejection of the demands of the administration’s anti-Semitism task force. He claimed the Trump administration’s efforts were ham-handed.

But what academic freedom are Harvard and Obama talking about? The freedom to discriminate and segregate by race in hiring, admissions, dorms, and graduations?

The freedom of 500 Harvard students to crash the classes of others, shut down traffic, and harass students on the basis of their religion or views on Israel?

Despite all of Harvard’s platitudes, its classrooms are still being disrupted. Jewish students remain fearful.

And what would Obama say if, for example, African-American students at Harvard were harassed on campus by masked disrupters?

Or black studies classes were crashed by students wearing scarves over their faces as they vented their hatred? Would he press the Trump administration to force Harvard to honor federal civil rights protections?

Remember, Harvard is a private university with a largely untaxed endowment of over $50.2 billion. Yet again, it still receives some $2.2 billion—now suspended—in federal funds.

The administration task force is not forcing Harvard to run its university according to its version of federal dictates.

Instead, the Trump commission is simply warning Harvard that if, in addition to its huge sources of private funding, it still wishes continuance of some $2.2 billion in public money from the federal government, then it must comply with existing laws and executive orders.

Does Harvard remember the embarrassing testimony of its former president, Claudine Gay?

She failed to assure a congressional committee that Harvard had taken action against openly hostile anti-Semitic student protestors during its growing protest movements.

Does Harvard understand why the Supreme Court ruled it had violated the “Equal Protection Clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment and was culpable of prejudice against Asian-Americans?

Does Harvard have any clue why it has lost some $150 million per annum of donor giving?

Does Harvard realize that no one believes its pretenses anymore that it “cannot and will not tolerate disruption” of classes—given that it still happens all the time at its various professional schools and undergraduate courses?

Perhaps Harvard should follow the strategy of independent Hillsdale College, which long ago wished to be free of federal dictates.

So, unlike Harvard, the college put its proverbial money where its mouth was and agreed unilaterally to give up all federal funding to be free of Washington’s octopus tentacles.

Yet, there is one critical distinction between Hillsdale and Harvard.

Hillsdale does not take federal money, period—whether doled out by either a Democrat or Republican administration.

It sincerely believes that too often the federal government itself does not follow the Constitution, impinges on freedom, and forces colleges to violate equality under the law when discriminating by race and gender.

Harvard has no such principles.

Its beef is not with the notion of an overweening federal government, eager to coerce private colleges to follow particular protocols.

Instead, it is at war only with the Trump commission or, in theory, any other similar conservative administration that might wish it to adhere to the law as a condition of being federally funded.

Otherwise, Harvard has no problem with an activist federal government, as long as it is a liberal one forcing all sorts of Title IX or DEI initiatives on private and Christian colleges that apparently lost their autonomy by accepting federal money. It has said nothing when state and federal governments in the past gratuitously hounded Hillsdale.

So, Harvard loudly can set itself free by permanently pursuing its agenda on its own $50 billion, in the same manner Hillsdale does quietly with its $1 billion—without the taxpayer’s dime, whether Democratic or Republican.
 
But out of all academic disciplines, only a very small handful (the social sciences) could possibly make a candidates' political leanings apparent.

All the sciences, engineering, health, law, education, etc., can have scholars studying things that have zero to do with political issues. No hiring committee is going to know you're a Trumper if you've spent your career studying migratory birds or property law or neurotransmitters.

And even in the social sciences, lots of stuff is decidedly non-political. Only the ones that specifically study structural inequality are likely to make their political views apparent.

So 95% of academics don't have anything to be discriminated on.

In the US, especially in the last 20 years, conservatism has been aligned with anti-intellectualism

We can look at the forum as a clear examples of that.

The process of learning itself is a fundamentally a "progressive" ideal

Someone who leans towards "conservatism" believes they have the answers, or the questions have already
been answered.

"the skygod made the clouds, why study them or climate?"

This is universal pretty much globally
 
If Donald Trump continues policies that undermine academia, there are several long-term consequences that will hurt the U.S. Here's how:

1. Decline in Scientific Innovation

Defunding research institutions or politicizing science can slow down innovation in areas like medicine, technology, and energy.

The U.S. has historically led the world in scientific output, much of it driven by universities. Undermining these institutions could reduce global competitiveness.


2. Brain Drain

Talented researchers, scientists, and students might leave for countries with better academic freedom and funding.

International students, who often contribute significantly to research and the economy, may choose other countries if the U.S. is seen as hostile to intellectual inquiry.


3. Erosion of Critical Thinking

Undermining education can lead to a less informed public and increased susceptibility to misinformation.

If academic freedom is limited, students may not learn to question, analyze, or challenge ideas—skills essential to a functioning democracy.


4. Weakened Democracy

Universities play a crucial role in upholding democratic norms by fostering debate, civic engagement, and a deeper understanding of history and government.

If academic voices are silenced or demonized, public discourse becomes less grounded in facts and more in ideology.


5. Economic Impact

Universities are major economic engines, especially in research, tech startups, and local economies. Weakening them could harm regional and national growth.

Fewer investments in STEM and the humanities mean fewer innovations, patents, and creative outputs.


6. Cultural and Global Reputation

The U.S. has long been a global leader in education. Undermining academia could damage its reputation and soft power around the world.

Countries like China and the EU could fill the vacuum, gaining influence in global research and education networks.

Trump is such a low IQ individual....
 
Now they are going after scientific journals and labs. I wonder how the morons in this thread will defend this.


"The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has terminated nearly 800 research projects at a breakneck pace, wiping out significant chunks of funding to entire scientific fields, finds a Nature analysis of the unprecedented cuts.

The administration of US President Donald Trump began purging NIH-funded studies on topics that it deems problematic less than 50 days ago, continuously expanding its list to include research on topics ranging from COVID-19 to misinformation. Hundreds of the 30,000-plus scientists funded by the NIH yearly have been forced to halt their work after receiving notices that their research “no longer effectuates agency priorities”, and some have had to fire personnel or even shut down their laboratories."


These US labs risk imminent closure after Trump cuts

To understand the extent and breadth of these actions, which have so far clawed back more than US$2.3 billion allocated to US researchers, Nature tapped into a scientist-led effort to track these cuts (see ‘How Nature analysed NIH’s grant terminations’ in Supplementary information). Our analysis reveals the project topics, NIH institutes and US states affected the most.

The cancellations of projects, despite scientists scoring them highly during review, “tears the long-standing fabric of the government’s contract to pursue medical research that seeks to better the healthspan and lifespan for all Americans”, says Francis Collins, a geneticist who led the NIH, based in Bethesda, Maryland, for 12 years under three US presidents, including Trump.

 
Last edited:
Back
Top