Excellent summary of the present moment. Indeed, reforms are direly needed -- but there are real dangers and real damage that are coming from the White House right now. Interruption of research funding is damaging to science and threats of censorship are damaging to free speech and academic freedom.
And yet, and yet... What do we do without a pressure from the top? Can universities reform themselves? Consider just one issue - bureaucratic bloat around research:
It has reached gargantuan proportions and I see no signs that universities are doing anything to curb it -- quite the opposite.
I agree with most points except those that suggest that DEI had good components that should be preserved. There is nothing good in DEI. Dismantling DEI completely will have only positive effects on academy. It will not create barriers for qualified minorities to enter STEM careers, quite the opposite -- it will bring us closer to color- and gender-blind society in which individuals are treated according to their merit and not according to their group identity.
"In his piece, Bork follows this standard academic practice of presenting “both sides” when it comes to Trump’s approach to higher education. I have to say, while I usually support this general approach to presenting information, in the current case, I do not. As I stated in this piece a few years ago about the January 6, 2021 riot on the capital building that tragically led to the death of five people, including a police officer and a veteran of the United States Air Force, sometimes, one side is simply right. (You remember that nightmare, right?!)
I have to say that I am discouraged to see a fellow academic supporting Trump’s approach in any capacity."
BUT, it did not end there. Nate has a masterful reply to Glenn -- and Nate's new essay on his own Substack is so good that it completely stands on its own. Its better than his guest post here.
"“There must be some way out of here,” said the joker to the thief. In All Along the Watchtower, Bob Dylan’s cryptic anthem, the wind howls with warnings of upheaval, a world turned upside down. I argued in my original piece that Donald Trump is that wind, a disruptive force shaking the foundations of political discourse and exposing the fault lines of our cultural psyche. Glenn Geher, in his response, Steal a Little and They Throw You in Jail, channels Dylan’s moral clarity to argue I’m romanticizing a conman, a felon whose divisiveness has fractured our society.
He has a point: Trump’s rap sheet (fraud convictions, election meddling allegations, etc.) ain’t exactly a protest song for the ages. But like Dylan’s tangled tales, the story’s deeper than one man’s flaws. The real howl comes from our own ivory towers, where we academics let radical leftists build a culture of fear, sowing the seeds for a backlash that’s as inevitable as a hard rain and as healthy as a voice crying in the wilderness."
I was surprised to read "Trump’s grant reallocations prioritize rigorous science, responding to taxpayer skepticism about flawed research, amplified by public distrust." Is that really true, and where can we find out more about that?
Do you think that the cuts in indirect cost rates will hurt research productivity? Many of the staff at my university are paid using indirect cost funds.
Also, what are your thoughts on the use of AI apps to identify grants to cancel or international students to deport? Many grants with words like "sexual minority" were canceled - including one focusing on cancer prevention among gay men. I don't understand what is objectionable about a project like that.
And do you think that Trump's proposed 40% cut to the NIH budget will actually happen? I have my own thoughts, but I am more interested in yours.
This is Nate Bork's post, but the q's are directed to me, so here goes, in order.
1. Yes. The whole thing is a testament to how they are not really serious about anything except degrading academia. Cut indirects? Sure, maybe to 20-25% but then make them on the whole grant. That would be less draconian, still a serious cut, AND cut bureaucratic bloat by making grant accounting way easier.
2a. AI & grants. Again, seems like they are cutting lots of stuff that should not be on their target. I am fine cutting whacky social justice work, and DEI could use being taken down to the studs. But there have been reports of stuff using similar terms for unrelated topics being terminated. And lord knows there is sane research on stereotypes, prejudice, discrimination etc that is worth funding such as the cancer/gay men work you referred to.
2b. AI & international students (& faculty!). Mostly dysfunctional. I am fine deporting any immigrant here with actual ties to U.S.-designated terrorist orgs. Beyond that, its ridiculous. U.S. can revoke visas without hearings, but if its for speech, it probably violates 1A.
3. 40% NIH cut. IDK. I mostly make predictions when I have a lot of knowledge about something and I have no inside info on the workings of the Trump admin (though you can read Rufo's stuff sometimes to get that inside info).
But I am pretty sure they could not give a rat's ass what I think.
But here is something that is not quite ready for a prediction, but kinda more of a brewing possibility. I think most Americans hate the visa-revokage, deportation-without-hearing stuff. It reminds them of the Gestapo. Dems gained 41 seats in 2018 (remember "kids in cages"?). Things could still change, lots of time before 2026, but I'd say we appear to be on a similar trajectory. And if Dems win the House with a big majority, things will get very interesting.
Sometimes these articles do not see the truth that there is just not enough governent or private money to support all the research that researchers want to do, classes that teach things of little productive use to a small interest group, adminsitrative things administrators want to do, or to pay the dramatically increased costs of higher education.
This really isn't about a culture war, it's about resetting financial priorities and accountability.
If you think that there should be enough money to do all of the education and research wanted by that community, where would the funding come from, taxpayers or deficit spending?
What parts of government or household spending should go down if we want to fully fund the existing higher education/research industry?
Is there no limit on the desires? No prioritization of productive items?
What better way is there to cut the spending other than to cut the spending?
Has the prior overspending been smart? If so, where is the evidence? Has the system had any successes at self reform?
The cause of administrative bloat must be detailed in order to know what to do about it. It won't be fixed by just firing administrators. They are doing things. What are they doing? I nominate as just one thing: dealing with increased administrative *demand.* That is, there are many more regulations and procedural requirements at (especially public) universities than there were 30 years ago. If I can imagine something worse than administrative bloat, it's losing those administrators without doing something about all the regulations and procedural requirements they are there to deal with. Because without those administrators, faculty and students will be doing it. If you thought things were bad now...
(1) Academia needs to reform itself or be reformed, because problems. Definitely. In many ways, academia has invited Trump's attacks.
However,
(2) those attacks are unrelated to the problems, not conducive to the reforms that are needed to fix the problems, nor is it their goal. They (the attacks) are simply punitive and destructive.
(3) Attempts to specifically target diversity in recruitment or admissions are destructive independently of the axis along which the diversity is or defined sought- sex, identity, race, religion, political affiliation, personal beliefs, views, etc. - and should be avoided.
IMHO, academia needs to get out of politics altogether and attract the best brains/educators/innovators there are out there while severely punishing any attempt to institutionalize activism and political activity. Of course, individuals can pursue their political beliefs, but they can't bring it to class/lab/workplace. Institutional political neutrality, respect for individual beliefs, integrity, pursuit of truth, etc. - all that good stuff that enables us (academics) to push the frontiers of knowledge and none of that litmus test/loyalty oath stuff that ideologues love so much that prevents us from doing so.
The author identifies the problems well, but his luke warm solutions are way too little way too late. His list of concerns for Trump overreach are reminiscent of the arguments used by Southerner to argue that slavery could not be ended because of the disruptions to the economy and social discomfort it would impose on the "elites" Southern society. It's an argument to avoid any substantive change. Since personnel is policy, there can be no reform unless there is massive policy change. Frankly, this means firing EVERY DEI administrator...and EVERY DEI hire on the faculty. It means reducing the liberal/progressive/Democrat membership of the faculty and replacing them with moderate and conservative faculty reflective of the national population. This cannot be done gradually via attrition (20% by 2030 for example) but by proactive termination of faculty from over-represented demographics and their immediate replacement by actual intellectually diverse faculty. Honestly..much of the academic workforce needs to be fired and replaced and sadly, academia has demonstrated it is incapable of fixing the problem by itself.
Excellent summary of the present moment. Indeed, reforms are direly needed -- but there are real dangers and real damage that are coming from the White House right now. Interruption of research funding is damaging to science and threats of censorship are damaging to free speech and academic freedom.
And yet, and yet... What do we do without a pressure from the top? Can universities reform themselves? Consider just one issue - bureaucratic bloat around research:
https://hxstem.substack.com/p/funded-research-at-a-us-university
It has reached gargantuan proportions and I see no signs that universities are doing anything to curb it -- quite the opposite.
I agree with most points except those that suggest that DEI had good components that should be preserved. There is nothing good in DEI. Dismantling DEI completely will have only positive effects on academy. It will not create barriers for qualified minorities to enter STEM careers, quite the opposite -- it will bring us closer to color- and gender-blind society in which individuals are treated according to their merit and not according to their group identity.
Glenn Geher, one of my SOIBS compatriots, has this reply to Nate's essay here.
https://glenngeher.substack.com/p/steal-a-little-and-they-throw-you
A brief quote:
"In his piece, Bork follows this standard academic practice of presenting “both sides” when it comes to Trump’s approach to higher education. I have to say, while I usually support this general approach to presenting information, in the current case, I do not. As I stated in this piece a few years ago about the January 6, 2021 riot on the capital building that tragically led to the death of five people, including a police officer and a veteran of the United States Air Force, sometimes, one side is simply right. (You remember that nightmare, right?!)
I have to say that I am discouraged to see a fellow academic supporting Trump’s approach in any capacity."
BUT, it did not end there. Nate has a masterful reply to Glenn -- and Nate's new essay on his own Substack is so good that it completely stands on its own. Its better than his guest post here.
https://nathanialbork2.substack.com/p/tangled-up-in-blue
Here are Nate's first two paragraphs:
"“There must be some way out of here,” said the joker to the thief. In All Along the Watchtower, Bob Dylan’s cryptic anthem, the wind howls with warnings of upheaval, a world turned upside down. I argued in my original piece that Donald Trump is that wind, a disruptive force shaking the foundations of political discourse and exposing the fault lines of our cultural psyche. Glenn Geher, in his response, Steal a Little and They Throw You in Jail, channels Dylan’s moral clarity to argue I’m romanticizing a conman, a felon whose divisiveness has fractured our society.
He has a point: Trump’s rap sheet (fraud convictions, election meddling allegations, etc.) ain’t exactly a protest song for the ages. But like Dylan’s tangled tales, the story’s deeper than one man’s flaws. The real howl comes from our own ivory towers, where we academics let radical leftists build a culture of fear, sowing the seeds for a backlash that’s as inevitable as a hard rain and as healthy as a voice crying in the wilderness."
You say "Eliminating DEI Jobs" like it's a bad thing.
"[Racially] Diverse teams drive innovation, and dismantling DEI risks sterile labs."
Do people really believe this? Or that, at the very least, you can legislate and impose innovation?
I was surprised to read "Trump’s grant reallocations prioritize rigorous science, responding to taxpayer skepticism about flawed research, amplified by public distrust." Is that really true, and where can we find out more about that?
An article by Axios (https://www.axios.com/2025/03/24/medical-studies-rfk-nih-replication), suggests that what the Trump regime wants to do is to "replicate away" findings that they didn't like, for instance the finding that vaccines do not cause autism.
This doesn't suggest that they are trying to prioritize rigorous science in general. But if they are, I'd like to know more.
Wonderful summary, Lee. Thank you.
Do you think that the cuts in indirect cost rates will hurt research productivity? Many of the staff at my university are paid using indirect cost funds.
Also, what are your thoughts on the use of AI apps to identify grants to cancel or international students to deport? Many grants with words like "sexual minority" were canceled - including one focusing on cancer prevention among gay men. I don't understand what is objectionable about a project like that.
And do you think that Trump's proposed 40% cut to the NIH budget will actually happen? I have my own thoughts, but I am more interested in yours.
This is Nate Bork's post, but the q's are directed to me, so here goes, in order.
1. Yes. The whole thing is a testament to how they are not really serious about anything except degrading academia. Cut indirects? Sure, maybe to 20-25% but then make them on the whole grant. That would be less draconian, still a serious cut, AND cut bureaucratic bloat by making grant accounting way easier.
2a. AI & grants. Again, seems like they are cutting lots of stuff that should not be on their target. I am fine cutting whacky social justice work, and DEI could use being taken down to the studs. But there have been reports of stuff using similar terms for unrelated topics being terminated. And lord knows there is sane research on stereotypes, prejudice, discrimination etc that is worth funding such as the cancer/gay men work you referred to.
2b. AI & international students (& faculty!). Mostly dysfunctional. I am fine deporting any immigrant here with actual ties to U.S.-designated terrorist orgs. Beyond that, its ridiculous. U.S. can revoke visas without hearings, but if its for speech, it probably violates 1A.
3. 40% NIH cut. IDK. I mostly make predictions when I have a lot of knowledge about something and I have no inside info on the workings of the Trump admin (though you can read Rufo's stuff sometimes to get that inside info).
But I am pretty sure they could not give a rat's ass what I think.
But here is something that is not quite ready for a prediction, but kinda more of a brewing possibility. I think most Americans hate the visa-revokage, deportation-without-hearing stuff. It reminds them of the Gestapo. Dems gained 41 seats in 2018 (remember "kids in cages"?). Things could still change, lots of time before 2026, but I'd say we appear to be on a similar trajectory. And if Dems win the House with a big majority, things will get very interesting.
Sometimes these articles do not see the truth that there is just not enough governent or private money to support all the research that researchers want to do, classes that teach things of little productive use to a small interest group, adminsitrative things administrators want to do, or to pay the dramatically increased costs of higher education.
This really isn't about a culture war, it's about resetting financial priorities and accountability.
If you think that there should be enough money to do all of the education and research wanted by that community, where would the funding come from, taxpayers or deficit spending?
What parts of government or household spending should go down if we want to fully fund the existing higher education/research industry?
Is there no limit on the desires? No prioritization of productive items?
What better way is there to cut the spending other than to cut the spending?
Has the prior overspending been smart? If so, where is the evidence? Has the system had any successes at self reform?
The cause of administrative bloat must be detailed in order to know what to do about it. It won't be fixed by just firing administrators. They are doing things. What are they doing? I nominate as just one thing: dealing with increased administrative *demand.* That is, there are many more regulations and procedural requirements at (especially public) universities than there were 30 years ago. If I can imagine something worse than administrative bloat, it's losing those administrators without doing something about all the regulations and procedural requirements they are there to deal with. Because without those administrators, faculty and students will be doing it. If you thought things were bad now...
See my reply to Seth, above. Also, I am mostly with Social Impurity, below.
My 2c:
(1) Academia needs to reform itself or be reformed, because problems. Definitely. In many ways, academia has invited Trump's attacks.
However,
(2) those attacks are unrelated to the problems, not conducive to the reforms that are needed to fix the problems, nor is it their goal. They (the attacks) are simply punitive and destructive.
(3) Attempts to specifically target diversity in recruitment or admissions are destructive independently of the axis along which the diversity is or defined sought- sex, identity, race, religion, political affiliation, personal beliefs, views, etc. - and should be avoided.
IMHO, academia needs to get out of politics altogether and attract the best brains/educators/innovators there are out there while severely punishing any attempt to institutionalize activism and political activity. Of course, individuals can pursue their political beliefs, but they can't bring it to class/lab/workplace. Institutional political neutrality, respect for individual beliefs, integrity, pursuit of truth, etc. - all that good stuff that enables us (academics) to push the frontiers of knowledge and none of that litmus test/loyalty oath stuff that ideologues love so much that prevents us from doing so.
The author identifies the problems well, but his luke warm solutions are way too little way too late. His list of concerns for Trump overreach are reminiscent of the arguments used by Southerner to argue that slavery could not be ended because of the disruptions to the economy and social discomfort it would impose on the "elites" Southern society. It's an argument to avoid any substantive change. Since personnel is policy, there can be no reform unless there is massive policy change. Frankly, this means firing EVERY DEI administrator...and EVERY DEI hire on the faculty. It means reducing the liberal/progressive/Democrat membership of the faculty and replacing them with moderate and conservative faculty reflective of the national population. This cannot be done gradually via attrition (20% by 2030 for example) but by proactive termination of faculty from over-represented demographics and their immediate replacement by actual intellectually diverse faculty. Honestly..much of the academic workforce needs to be fired and replaced and sadly, academia has demonstrated it is incapable of fixing the problem by itself.
Yeah, don't really appreciate clickbait-y titles. We've had enough of that ish.
Regarding research funding - endowments mean that there need be no disrpution in research - if the institutions so choose.