Steal A Little and They Throw You in Jail. Steal a Lot and They Make You King.
A forward-thinking response to Nathanial Bork's post regarding Trump's Impact on Academia
Steal a little and they throw you in jail
Steal a lot and they make you king (Dylan, Sweetheart Like You, 1983).
In a recent post regarding Trump’s impact on academia, University of Arkansas scholar, Nathanial Bork, has posted a provocative piece* regarding Trump’s impact on higher education. Creatively, he couches this piece in the context of some of Bob Dylan’s famously stirring lyrics. Well as someone who is also well-versed in the words of the bard—and as someone who also has a dog in the race regarding what happens with the future of higher education (as well as our shared future writ large)—I’d say that two can play that game.
Following the guidance of the explicitly conservative Project 2025 document (officially titled: Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise), edited by Paul Dans and Steven Grove) on changes that seem to affect nearly every aspect of American life, the Trump administration is brazenly implementing (or trying to implement) monumental changes to so many spheres of the lives of all of us.
To his credit, Bork’s piece has thoughtful and moderate (and certainly informed) elements. Further, several of my own publications are critical of various aspects of higher education (See Mackiel, Link, & Geher, 2023; Geher & Rolon, 2019).
I’ve been either a student or faculty member in higher education (having taught at eight different institutions) since 1988. So I know the terrain pretty well.
In teaching college, we often make a point to teach our students about the importance of understanding and presenting “both sides” of pretty much any and all issues (with important exceptions pertaining to subjects such as astrology, flat-earth theory, etc.).
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. His efforts and actions that have the intent (or effect) of intimidating academics and other educators, discouraging free speech, shaking the core of our economy, gutting funding for extremely important projects such as the NIH-Supported Women’s Health Initiative, etc., are, as I see it, moving us all, at breakneck speed, toward a fascist, non-democratic future. I just don’t think that any people who identify as American signed up for this.
Not only are the policies that are being implemented often questionable and unsettling, but the process by which these policies are being implemented is nothing short of reckless. It is as if a machete is being used for an intricate surgery on a treasured family member when a scalpel is the optimal tool.**
I have to say, that while I do think higher education in the US could use some improvements in many areas, the hyper-aggressive approach that is being implemented to our industry (as well as to so many others) is nothing short of reckless and inhumane.
It is also hypocritical in so many ways (see my piece on this issue from Psychology Today here). Vice President Vance is on record as referring to “the professors” as “the enemy.” I wonder what his professors, to whom he owes much gratitude, from Ohio State University and Yale University think about this framing. I hope he has told these professors who helped him with his achievements in his career this: Thank you. But somehow I doubt it.
While talking about hypocrisy, it is important to note that Donald Trump would probably not be in the position that he is currently in had it not been for the faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, where he obtained a degree in economics. If the faculty at Penn who taught him are anything like the professors whom I work with at SUNY New Paltz, they worked tirelessly—often around the clock—to provide him with the best education that they were capable of providing.
The authors of the nefarious Project 2025 document similarly owe debts of gratitude to important US institutions of higher education. Paul Dans holds degrees from MIT and UVA while Steven Grove holds degrees from both Harvard and Claremont McKenna.
For such individuals to treat US higher education with profound and public levels of disrespect is, to my mind, just wrong.
Bork starts his piece with a section titled Why Trump’s Reforms are Necessary, which is soon followed by a section titled Why Trump’s Reforms are Horrendous.
As someone who is deeply concerned about our nation turning into a fascist dictatorship (and there is good evidence that validates this concern), I simply reject the sentiment that any of Trump’s policies on higher education are necessary. I think that they are steeped in an extreme form of conservatism that dismisses the reasons that higher education in the US currently takes the form that it takes.
Near the end of this piece, I provide (as Bork does) a suggested path forward on this issue. I hope people find it helpful.
Critical Race Theory, US History, and Systemic Racism
Oxford town around the bend
Come to the door, he couldn't get in
All because of the color of his skin
What do you think about that, my friend? (Dylan, Oxford Town, 1963)
Bob Dylan first made a name for himself singing protest songs—many of which focused on the African American experience in this country which has a famously complex and extremely depressing history.
Ideas such as Critical Race Theory, taught in various academic contexts in higher education, did not show up spontaneously or in a vacuum. These ideas are directly and deeply rooted in the systemic racism that has characterized our nation since its inception (see Needham, 2022). Institutions (or systems) such as slavery and segregation in the South (which exemplify perhaps the most blatant forms of systemic racism) have shaped so many features of our country’s history.
Critical Race Theory (see Ford & Airhihenbuwa, 2018) largely is a way of thinking about broader societal issues, such as the substantial health and economic disparities that exist across racial and ethnic groups in the US, based on principles of systemic racism and history. While some of the details of Critical Race Theory may still need empirical support—to dismiss the basic idea that this country has enormous disparities across racial and ethnic groups when it comes to fiscal outcomes, health outcomes, educational outcomes, and more would fly in the face of all kinds of data. And to argue that such disparities are unrelated to our nation’s unique (and shameful) history on these issues—coupled with systemic racism—is not a pill that I am willing to swallow.
In my scholarship, I do not focus on Critical Race Theory. But as a scholar, I am an advocate of academic freedom and I firmly stand with the idea that scholars in a particular field should be involved in conversations about the principles of their own field. For the 2025 document, produced by non-academics, to call for the abolition of Critical Race Theory in higher education would be like for me to call the deciding play in next year’s Super bowl as opposed to having the head coach of the actual team make that call. Having people outside of some field make decisions that have important implications for said field is, simply, bad practice. Not to mention wildly disrespectful.
Why Trump’s Reforms are Horrendous
This all said, I do agree with Bork when it comes to the points that he makes regarding why Trump’s suggested reforms to higher education are horrendous (no surprise, there I am guessing!).
In all my decades in higher education, I have never seen a situation in which a sitting US president has worked to implement orders to defund universities and other institutions of federal grants. These grants are essentially contractual. People rely on them for their livelihoods. Further, grants from entities such as the National Institute of Health tend to be vetted intensively by world-leading experts on various topics.
For the US president to try to strip a broad array of institutions in higher education of what are essentially promised (in-writing) federal monies is more than a little disappointing. It is, as various scholars at Harvard have pointed out, highly questionable in terms of its legality. And all academics should be proud of Harvard University for suing the federal government over precisely this issue.
Harvard University has produced six presidents of the United States across the centuries. This institution stands for so much of what our nation stands for in the most basic sense. Freedom of expression, inquiry, diversity, advancement of ideas, fairness, and the development of the next generation of leaders. Going after institutions of this sort is simply un-American. And, to be honest, saddening.
And this all says nothing of the clear efforts to squelch free speech that the current administration is similarly implementing at institutions of higher education across our nation. When a doctoral student from Turkey who holds a legal green card to attend Tufts University is accosted by ICE for deportation due to her expressing opinions that do not align with the current federal administration, the first amendment pretty much goes down the toilet. Does that sound American to you?
The Trump administration’s approach to higher education reform is un-American, reckless, and questionable in terms of its legality. And this is the tip of the iceberg.
Thoughtful Decision-Making about Higher Education Reform
This all said, I do not disagree with Bork that higher education is not without its problems. I could (and likely soon will) write an entire post about the many problems entrenched in US higher education (as I understand them).
But as I see it, a best practice to articulate those problems is to have people who are inside higher education working collaboratively and thoughtfully to articulate what those problems are. We don’t need a Monday Morning Quarterback who has never worked for a single day as an employee in the field of higher education to tell us what our problems are.
So like Bork (who, to be fair, did work to present his ideas in a thoughtful and balanced way—in spite of the sharp disagreements I have with much of his take), I will end this piece with my thoughts on a path forward.
A Path Forward
Twilight on the frozen lake
North wind about to break
Footprints in the snow
Silence down below (Dylan, Never Say Goodbye, 1974)
When it comes to fixing the problems of higher education in the US, the path forward is difficult to navigate—much like walking on a frozen lake at twilight. That said, at this point in history, as I see it, silence is not an option.
When thoughtful and experienced intellectuals and those with major experience as public servants, such as Robert Reich, warn us that our nation is on the verge of losing our status as a free democracy, taking heed is not an option. We all simply must take heed.
Freedom of expression is on its way out the window. Retirement accounts for millions of us have been gutted. Education, at all levels, is being disrupted at breakneck speed in a dizzying number of directions.
These are not normal times.
When it comes to higher education, sure, the system is far from perfect and improvements are needed. That said, such improvements need to be made (a) by people who actually are experts in the field and (b) they need to be made with a scalpel—gently—and not blindly with a machete.
Dans and Grove, the editors of Project 2025 (or what we might call The Ultra-Conservative Manifesto) have both gotten to their advanced positions partly due to their being highly educated within high-caliber, caring institutions of higher education in the US. Further, neither of them works in the field of higher education. For these individuals to essentially drive the ship of higher education in the US is, with all due respect, simply unacceptable.
How about this: Imagine a national-level Task Force charged with making recommendations on changes to higher education in the US—charged with creating a report that includes a reasonable timeline (e.g., Reduce administrative glut by X percent by the end of calendar year 2028). As I see it, such a task force could be created by a bipartisan congressional team.
It could include about a dozen carefully selected individuals. Such individuals could include (if I had my druthers):
4 highly respected academic faculty from a diversity of universities and colleges.
4 highly respected university presidents from across a diversity of universities and colleges in the US.
2 members of congress who have extensive experience regarding legislation that pertains to issues of higher education.
And two members of the Boards of Trustees of highly effective and respected universities (maybe Harvard?).
A focus would be on representation—ensuring that members from a variety of kinds of institutions and fields would be included. Such a focus on representativeness of diverse individuals, groups, and perspectives would be wildly consistent with core and long-standing American values.
The Task Force could be charged with creating an action-oriented report with recommendations that cut across issues that surround higher education (academic freedom, federal grant projects, tuition and grants to support students, programs associated with supporting diversity of students, faculty, and administration, etc.).
I could get behind something like this. But getting behind an administration comprised of people who seem largely ungrateful to the the people at institutions of higher education who helped them to get to where they are today is just not OK with me. Especially when said individuals have little to no experience working in the field of higher education.
I wouldn’t want the president of the United States to call the final play in next year’s Super bowl. Nor do I want the president of the United States to tell the leaders in the industry that I have dedicated my life and career to—higher education—how to run our affairs.
When it comes to the Trump administration unilaterally shaping higher education in the US, on behalf of our shared future, I say no thanks. And for the reasons demarcated herein, I hope that you do too.
References
Ford CL, & Airhihenbuwa CO. Commentary: Just What is Critical Race Theory and What's it Doing in a Progressive Field like Public Health? Ethn Dis. 2018 Aug 9;28(Suppl 1):223-230. doi: 10.18865/ed.28.S1.223. PMID: 30116090; PMCID: PMC6092167.
Geher, G., & Rolon, V. (2019). Controversies Surrounding Evolutionary Psychology. In D. Wilson, G. Geher, H. Mativetsky, & A. Gallup (Eds.), Darwin’s Roadmap to the Curriculum: Evolutionary Studies in Higher Education. New York: Oxford University Press.
Groves Price, P. Critical Race Theory. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Retrieved 25 Apr. 2025, from https://oxfordre.com/education/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-1.
Mackiel, A., Link, J., & Geher, G. (2023). Dissecting Darwin’s Drama: Understanding the politicization of evolutionary psychology within the academy. In C. Frisby, W. O’Donohue, & & S. Lilienfeld (Eds.) Political Bias in Psychology. Springer.
Needham BL, Ali T, Allgood KL, Ro A, Hirschtick JL, Fleischer NL. Institutional Racism and Health: a Framework for Conceptualization, Measurement, and Analysis. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2023 Aug;10(4):1997-2019. doi: 10.1007/s40615-022-01381-9. Epub 2022 Aug 22. PMID: 35994173; PMCID: PMC9395863.
Tourish, D. (2023). It is time to use the F word about Trump: Fascism, populism and the rebirth of history. Leadership, 20(1), 9-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/17427150231210732 (Original work published 2024)
*As a guest post for Lee Jussim’s Substack, Unsafe Science
**Thanks to my wife Shannon Geher (author of the Substack The Writer’s Life) for this metaphor.
This essay first appeared on Glenn’s Substack.
Before commenting, please review my commenting guidelines. They will prevent your comments from being deleted. Here are the core ideas:
Don’t attack or insult the author or other commenters.
Stay relevant to the post.
Keep it short.
Do not dominate a comment thread.
Do not mindread, its a loser’s game.
Don’t tell me how to run Unsafe Science or what to post. (Guest essays are welcome and inquiries about doing one should be submitted by email).
Related Posts
 | A guest post by
|
You lost me from the very beginning when you inaccurately claimed that 5 people died as a result of the events of Jan 6. Only one person died as a result of the events of January 6, and her name was Ashley Babbitt. Everyone else died of either self-inflicted wounds or poor health issues that had been present for quite some time. Please do a little bit more research on this instead of just taking the word of the legacy media outlets. Furthermore, the president is not telling higher education institutions how to run their affairs. He’s telling them you have to follow the law. If you don’t like that, then petition your legislators to change the law. Don’t be upset with the man for insisting that higher education institutions avoid racist, anti-science, anti-common sense (gender ideology) practices.
Reading this piece convinces me that Donald Trump and his approach are EXACTLY what is needed to restore academia to its proper role in society. The author appears not to have considered that those who came through academia as students (as he argues Vance and Trump did) are wrong because they came to a different conclusion about the organization than....let's be blunt...the liberal Democrats who dominate academia have. My own grandfather graduated from Harvard in 1936 at the age of 23. He was the child of a college professor himself. His experiences with Harvard as a student and later working in research with academia led him to the same basic opinion of academic institutions that the Trump administration has. It might be time to start talking to those who do not fit in with the progressives in academia if you want to understand the problem.