Trump vs. the Universities: Is Academic Freedom Under Siege?

Disputes over academic freedom have long characterized the American system of universities, but in the Trump era, the battle between intellectual autonomy and government control has hit historic levels.

The White House has used federal power to reshape higher education in a political likeness, critics argue, threatening free inquiry and dissent in the process.

Administration supporters see the settlement differently. Universities have long tolerated toxic environments, allowing "race-hate theories" along with exclusionary rhetoric in the guise of diversity efforts.

In their opinion, Columbia had failed to act against vicious antisemitic assaults, particularly after the October 7, 2023, massacres in Israel, when Jewish students and professors were harassed and assaulted. The government's intervention, they argue, simply restored accountability.

The critics' view....

Frank Kendall, writing in The New York Times, warned that fear has become a governing ethos of American public life. Trump's eviction of career military officers and civil servants, eplacing them with political loyalists has, in Kendall's estimation, sent a "chilling message" through public institutions. Universities, traditional bastions of free speech, are now in the same upheaval. Academic leaders are reticent to critique the administration for fear of political and financial reprisal.

The tipping point was Columbia University's $221 million settlement with the federal government. The government accused the Ivy League university of encouraging antisemitism through student protests against the Gaza War and elements of its curriculum. As part of the deal, Columbia consented to sweeping limitations, such as a ban on considering diversity in hiring and admissions, additional oversight by government-appointed monitors, and reporting foreign students who have been expelled. Columbia's acting president, Claire Shipman, defended the agreement as preserving academic independence while securing federal funds. But others, like Chris Lehmann in The Nation, view the move as a capitulation that sets a troubling precedent for other universities.

Final thoughts...

This whole episode has less to do with justice than with political control, even if this deal avoided the most oppressive proposals— such as giving the government curriculum control or the authority to determine faculty hiring.

But if Trump can rip up global trade agreements with friendly countries like Canada and Mexico, Naidu asks, why should universities have any faith in any promises of good faith? Conservative think tanks behind "Project 2025" explicitly seek to make higher education a political tool, so it's likely that new scandals will be manufactured to serve as a pretext for further crackdowns.