To give a bit of pushback to all the attacks on this piece in the comments: a) I agree with Glenn's main points. b) I'll repeat what I wrote as a comment to the second Bork post in this discussion:
We as academics should be able to have two thoughts in our heads simultaneously, especially if they are both true and not contradicting each other at all. The first thought is: A) there is a lot of things very f-ed up in Academia. The second thought is: B) Trump is attacking higher education while he is leading us straight to authoritarian fascism. I just don't see how A becoming more true magically makes B less dangerous or more desirable.
If someone goes to a doctor with a headache, shooting them in the head will solve the headache issue, but there are probably less destructive ways to achieve this. To paraphrase a famous saying from the Vietnam era, it seems unlikely that we will save the village of Academia by destroying it.
Of course some people might be so angry at Academia they want to burn the entire place down (and the country it's in), and I've actually heard some angry academics say that, but I think we could reasonably agree that that's a bit of an overreaction.
When you agree that Charles Murray's views should be taught and fairly debated; when Larry Summers is reinstated and his views on the potential differences in male and female capabilities taught and fairly debated; when their is a measurable uniform standard for entry and graduation then your position might make sense.
My college education started as a classroom/online hybrid experience and I transitioned to 100% online when it became available. Stories of the campus experience, indoctrination, and unjustifiable tuition leave me wondering what’s the appeal of being there in person?
"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..."
This is a Jon Oliver-esque way of defining CRT in that it leaves out half of the core assumptions. Might want to check the main textbook by Delgado and Stefancic (https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Third-Introduction/dp/147980276X), which clearly outlines other core aspects of the theory including a rejection of the concept of rights, reliance on standpoint epistemology, a rejection of objectivity and liberalism, a primitive form of relativism, and more! It's a lot more than just needing empirical support; it's also suffering from dogmatism and conceptual confusion.
Not much of an argument here other than an appeal to emotion. The lie that is systemic racism is the author’s fundamental assumption. This is what we are rejecting. Disparate outcomes are no longer the result of disparate treatment. Stop privileging individuals who have not been discriminated against at the expense of individuals who have not been privileged. And J6 “led to 5 deaths”? Really? Hard to take anyone seriously when they are so invested in false narratives.
NYT lied and repeating that lie is spreading misinformation. Remember the NYT no longer believes objectivity is important, so says Wesley Lowrey.
4 Trump supporters died on Jan 6th: one shot by capital police, 2 by natural causes heart attack, and 1 drug overdose.
Officer Brian Sicknik died of natural causes heart attack the following day according to the coroner. 4 other officers committed suicide in the weeks and months afterwards.
...but honestly, quibbling about these details deflects from the point--a sitting president incited a riot on our capital building--he had clearly lost the election and this action was inappropriate for so many reasons--that this happened at all--and that anyone got even hurt at all is beyond any limits of human decency that I can think of. Amplifying "us" and "them" thinking is the enemy of the broader human experience--I personally suggest that we work together to stay away from that. We're all in this together--our shared future is, by definition, shared.
Eh, it's not that it's a "lie", it's more that it's only one factor, and not fair to pretend it's always a factor or the only factor, and most of all it's a horrible approach to encouraging people to shift their attitudes.
Good on you, Lee, for hosting back and forth discussion.
" 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."
This is an absolutely ridiculous line. How does one suggest that professors work tirelessly, and then further suggest that they work with a focus on providing education? Most professors at research schools teach one class a semester! Almost all of the work interacting with students is carried out by graduate students, not the professors, who work tirelessly seeking grants to the extent they do anything tirelessly. The selling point of those universities to prospective professors is that there is little to no interaction with students required and the new professor will be free to focus on their research.
Possibly Geher teaches somewhere very far from those norms, a small teaching college perhaps, but to be even unaware of the norm in the large part of academia is surprising to say the least.
yeah, I know there are different kinds of schools--I'm at a "comprehensive state university" which is like right in the middle when it comes to teaching/research. That is not a primary point here.
My point on that was essentially this: If Trump didn't have a college degree, I think it'd be likely that he'd not have risen to president. Sure, professors at different kinds of schools have different priorities, etc., but without the work of the folks at UPenn (folks being used broadly), he'd likely not be there. So he's got someone to thank (maybe past Penn PhD students, professional staff, advisors, the occasional faculty member in the classroom, etc.).
I do think that academia needs major reflection and change. Just as strongly, I feel that he is not the person to make those changes given that he is not expert in the field (along with various other issues).
Please consider, for a moment, the possibility that his experiences at UPenn, and more likely the experiences of more recent students, are what made him comfortable saying it needs serious reform. My experiences, both as student and faculty, certainly demonstrated to me that academia's current state is deeply broken. I have had some great teachers, and many more who were mere checkboxes on the way to a credential, and a few who were net negatives.
I think it is indicative of how broken the academic environment is that in light of all problems, for all the statements of how "academia needs major reflection and change", an academic will still say that the change needs to come from the inside and assert that instead those seeking to change things should be thanking academia for acting as it has. Forgive me, but that makes me wonder how much reflection and change you actually believe academia needs.
When I run into people who ask "Oh, what do you teach?" and upon answering they say "Oh... economics was my least favorite class" I don't respond "Well, economics education needs major reflection and change, but who are you to say that it is bad? You should thank your teachers."
Honestly, non-person-to-person communication of this variety just has too much potential to go down paths of misunderstanding. I see it as one of the largest problems on the horizon of our shared future. So I'll stop with this one.
I appreciate the respectful and professional tone and elaboration that you provide here. I don’t think I really disagree with you very much. If you look up my work, especially on Psychology Today (e.g., )https://www.psychologytoday.com/ie/blog/darwins-subterranean-world/201610/freedom-speech-campus), you’ll see that I’m legitimately critical of academia for a lot of reasons and have been for a pretty long time. And if you look at the piece that I wrote, that is one of the Substack targets here, including my suggestions for a path forward, you will see that I do think it would be good to have some people from outside academia help to shape the future of it. We are in agreement. So we're not really disagreeing on these points. I can tell you lots and lots of crazy stories about academia—as I’m sure you could to me. It’s not just lip service. It’s a system that needs fixing. That said, I truly don’t think that the federal executive branch is the appropriate entity to fix it. But on certain points, we respectfully can agree to disagree. Thanks for engaging the conversation.
> 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.
Does the same logic apply to the teaching of Creationism?
But then when you said that withdrawing funding for an NIH study on women's health was "fascist", I knew what was coming. And come it did - yet another extended, unhinged, off-topic rant about Trump, when the topic was academia.
And in doing so, you managed to completely avoid the actual topic.
Just like what the MAGAts used to do with Obama or Biden.
This was an emotion-laced, elitists viewpoint missing the forest for the trees.
Yes many owe certain aspects of academia a thank you. But anyone who hasn’t recognized that the vast majority of higher ed has become nothing more than an indoctrination camp for Marxism has his head side by side with the ostrich.
I believe the stats are in 2015 around 55% trusted higher ed. Down to around 36% in a 2023 survey.
Also, the CRT argument is tired. It didn’t work. Research proved it didn’t work. And most people realize that the truthful parts of history that aren’t designed to divide the country were already being taught. There was truly no need for CRT.
Trump has a higher approval rating in a few months than Biden did the entire time. His immigration policies have a 56% approval rating. That’s crazy high for a potus.
The idea that other academics need to be the ones who reform academia is like having Joe Biden investigate hunter’s laptop story. If they do find disparaging info, NO ONE trusts them to address it correctly and transparently.
The overt Marxist indoctrination brought this on. The treatment of Jewish students as though they were attempting a sit in during the 1960s brought this on. Lying to suffering children that they can be any gender they want brought this on. All from universities.
But I love free speech so I can see who the delusional people are.
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.
Are you aware that NYT piece agrees with the person to whom you're responding?
Except in the case of Rosanne Boyland, where since that piece was published we learned she died due to an amphetamine overdose. She did struggle with addiction.
This is not nitpicking, as putting that claim right in the front of your piece -- and then in the comments apparently just assuming the NYT article contradicted Mr. Alexander, when it does not -- fatally weakens your subsequent argument.
Even if those events are not especially relevant to the matter at hand, your eagerness to cling to easily spotted incorrect narratives makes you an unreliable narrator.
I agree that reform SHOULD have come from the inside. However, was there any sign that was possible considering the direction the universities have been trending for the past 50 years? Was there ever a blip where they even became slightly more conservative? Have there been any efforts by the ever expanding administrative apparatus to improve real viewpoint diversity, instead of trying to find people with higher melanin levels that say the things affluent white liberals already want to hear? I don't think so. Education rotted like a fish, from the head all they down to its stinking tail.
"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"
"I have to say that I am discouraged to see a fellow academic supporting Trump’s approach in any capacity."
So basically TDS.
My favorite part of this post is the dubious claim that the people Geher doesn't like should be thankful to the higher education racket for forcing them to take part in that racket before they were allowed past various forms of gatekeeping.
My favorite FAVORITE part is when Geher claims that Trump owes the University of Pennsylvania for the position he's currently in. I'm sure someone like Trump (born to a wealthy real estate developer) would have had no future in real estate development without the opportunities a college education afforded him.
Example: Haven't heard about it lately, but in his first administration there was a desire to forbid paywalls on any academic paper that involved government funds.
Isn't this something that ... well ... all of agree about?
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.
Trump isn't required for the GOP to pay better attention to how they have been enabling woke excesses in academia. But we can't deny that he was the one who finally took that extra step of using the full power of the Presidency in the effort to combat it.
I just hope that the effort continues after his term ends. It will take a lot more than just one presidential term to bring things back to an even keel.
Agreed. Trump's personal wealth and personality give him the strength to take on the new "plantation owner" class that academia increasingly sounds like in their entitlement and refusal to follow civil rights laws.
To give a bit of pushback to all the attacks on this piece in the comments: a) I agree with Glenn's main points. b) I'll repeat what I wrote as a comment to the second Bork post in this discussion:
We as academics should be able to have two thoughts in our heads simultaneously, especially if they are both true and not contradicting each other at all. The first thought is: A) there is a lot of things very f-ed up in Academia. The second thought is: B) Trump is attacking higher education while he is leading us straight to authoritarian fascism. I just don't see how A becoming more true magically makes B less dangerous or more desirable.
If someone goes to a doctor with a headache, shooting them in the head will solve the headache issue, but there are probably less destructive ways to achieve this. To paraphrase a famous saying from the Vietnam era, it seems unlikely that we will save the village of Academia by destroying it.
Of course some people might be so angry at Academia they want to burn the entire place down (and the country it's in), and I've actually heard some angry academics say that, but I think we could reasonably agree that that's a bit of an overreaction.
Thank you, JP--I think I needed exactly this after reading all these comments! Unsurprisingly, perhaps, I agree with you fully!
"not without its problems" = abadonment of truth seeking
When you agree that Charles Murray's views should be taught and fairly debated; when Larry Summers is reinstated and his views on the potential differences in male and female capabilities taught and fairly debated; when their is a measurable uniform standard for entry and graduation then your position might make sense.
My college education started as a classroom/online hybrid experience and I transitioned to 100% online when it became available. Stories of the campus experience, indoctrination, and unjustifiable tuition leave me wondering what’s the appeal of being there in person?
"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..."
This is a Jon Oliver-esque way of defining CRT in that it leaves out half of the core assumptions. Might want to check the main textbook by Delgado and Stefancic (https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Race-Theory-Third-Introduction/dp/147980276X), which clearly outlines other core aspects of the theory including a rejection of the concept of rights, reliance on standpoint epistemology, a rejection of objectivity and liberalism, a primitive form of relativism, and more! It's a lot more than just needing empirical support; it's also suffering from dogmatism and conceptual confusion.
I talk about some of this in my article on critical theory more broadly: https://substack.com/home/post/p-63051944
Not much of an argument here other than an appeal to emotion. The lie that is systemic racism is the author’s fundamental assumption. This is what we are rejecting. Disparate outcomes are no longer the result of disparate treatment. Stop privileging individuals who have not been discriminated against at the expense of individuals who have not been privileged. And J6 “led to 5 deaths”? Really? Hard to take anyone seriously when they are so invested in false narratives.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/us/who-died-in-capitol-building-attack.html
Weak.
NYT lied and repeating that lie is spreading misinformation. Remember the NYT no longer believes objectivity is important, so says Wesley Lowrey.
4 Trump supporters died on Jan 6th: one shot by capital police, 2 by natural causes heart attack, and 1 drug overdose.
Officer Brian Sicknik died of natural causes heart attack the following day according to the coroner. 4 other officers committed suicide in the weeks and months afterwards.
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/how-many-died-as-a-result-of-capitol-riot/
via Snopes: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/capitol-riot-deaths/
...but honestly, quibbling about these details deflects from the point--a sitting president incited a riot on our capital building--he had clearly lost the election and this action was inappropriate for so many reasons--that this happened at all--and that anyone got even hurt at all is beyond any limits of human decency that I can think of. Amplifying "us" and "them" thinking is the enemy of the broader human experience--I personally suggest that we work together to stay away from that. We're all in this together--our shared future is, by definition, shared.
Eh, it's not that it's a "lie", it's more that it's only one factor, and not fair to pretend it's always a factor or the only factor, and most of all it's a horrible approach to encouraging people to shift their attitudes.
Good on you, Lee, for hosting back and forth discussion.
" 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."
This is an absolutely ridiculous line. How does one suggest that professors work tirelessly, and then further suggest that they work with a focus on providing education? Most professors at research schools teach one class a semester! Almost all of the work interacting with students is carried out by graduate students, not the professors, who work tirelessly seeking grants to the extent they do anything tirelessly. The selling point of those universities to prospective professors is that there is little to no interaction with students required and the new professor will be free to focus on their research.
Possibly Geher teaches somewhere very far from those norms, a small teaching college perhaps, but to be even unaware of the norm in the large part of academia is surprising to say the least.
yeah, I know there are different kinds of schools--I'm at a "comprehensive state university" which is like right in the middle when it comes to teaching/research. That is not a primary point here.
My point on that was essentially this: If Trump didn't have a college degree, I think it'd be likely that he'd not have risen to president. Sure, professors at different kinds of schools have different priorities, etc., but without the work of the folks at UPenn (folks being used broadly), he'd likely not be there. So he's got someone to thank (maybe past Penn PhD students, professional staff, advisors, the occasional faculty member in the classroom, etc.).
I do think that academia needs major reflection and change. Just as strongly, I feel that he is not the person to make those changes given that he is not expert in the field (along with various other issues).
Thanks for responding.
Please consider, for a moment, the possibility that his experiences at UPenn, and more likely the experiences of more recent students, are what made him comfortable saying it needs serious reform. My experiences, both as student and faculty, certainly demonstrated to me that academia's current state is deeply broken. I have had some great teachers, and many more who were mere checkboxes on the way to a credential, and a few who were net negatives.
I think it is indicative of how broken the academic environment is that in light of all problems, for all the statements of how "academia needs major reflection and change", an academic will still say that the change needs to come from the inside and assert that instead those seeking to change things should be thanking academia for acting as it has. Forgive me, but that makes me wonder how much reflection and change you actually believe academia needs.
When I run into people who ask "Oh, what do you teach?" and upon answering they say "Oh... economics was my least favorite class" I don't respond "Well, economics education needs major reflection and change, but who are you to say that it is bad? You should thank your teachers."
Honestly, non-person-to-person communication of this variety just has too much potential to go down paths of misunderstanding. I see it as one of the largest problems on the horizon of our shared future. So I'll stop with this one.
I appreciate the respectful and professional tone and elaboration that you provide here. I don’t think I really disagree with you very much. If you look up my work, especially on Psychology Today (e.g., )https://www.psychologytoday.com/ie/blog/darwins-subterranean-world/201610/freedom-speech-campus), you’ll see that I’m legitimately critical of academia for a lot of reasons and have been for a pretty long time. And if you look at the piece that I wrote, that is one of the Substack targets here, including my suggestions for a path forward, you will see that I do think it would be good to have some people from outside academia help to shape the future of it. We are in agreement. So we're not really disagreeing on these points. I can tell you lots and lots of crazy stories about academia—as I’m sure you could to me. It’s not just lip service. It’s a system that needs fixing. That said, I truly don’t think that the federal executive branch is the appropriate entity to fix it. But on certain points, we respectfully can agree to disagree. Thanks for engaging the conversation.
> 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.
Does the same logic apply to the teaching of Creationism?
> His efforts and actions that have the intent (or effect) of intimidating academics and other educators, discouraging free speech
Did you have a similar objection while the Biden administration was doing the same thing with its DEI policies?
I had such hope for you.
But then when you said that withdrawing funding for an NIH study on women's health was "fascist", I knew what was coming. And come it did - yet another extended, unhinged, off-topic rant about Trump, when the topic was academia.
And in doing so, you managed to completely avoid the actual topic.
Just like what the MAGAts used to do with Obama or Biden.
You just can't help yourselves.
Sad.
This was an emotion-laced, elitists viewpoint missing the forest for the trees.
Yes many owe certain aspects of academia a thank you. But anyone who hasn’t recognized that the vast majority of higher ed has become nothing more than an indoctrination camp for Marxism has his head side by side with the ostrich.
I believe the stats are in 2015 around 55% trusted higher ed. Down to around 36% in a 2023 survey.
Also, the CRT argument is tired. It didn’t work. Research proved it didn’t work. And most people realize that the truthful parts of history that aren’t designed to divide the country were already being taught. There was truly no need for CRT.
Trump has a higher approval rating in a few months than Biden did the entire time. His immigration policies have a 56% approval rating. That’s crazy high for a potus.
The idea that other academics need to be the ones who reform academia is like having Joe Biden investigate hunter’s laptop story. If they do find disparaging info, NO ONE trusts them to address it correctly and transparently.
The overt Marxist indoctrination brought this on. The treatment of Jewish students as though they were attempting a sit in during the 1960s brought this on. Lying to suffering children that they can be any gender they want brought this on. All from universities.
But I love free speech so I can see who the delusional people are.
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.
The NYT is not a reputable source
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/how-many-died-as-a-result-of-capitol-riot/
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/us/who-died-in-capitol-building-attack.html
Are you aware that NYT piece agrees with the person to whom you're responding?
Except in the case of Rosanne Boyland, where since that piece was published we learned she died due to an amphetamine overdose. She did struggle with addiction.
This is not nitpicking, as putting that claim right in the front of your piece -- and then in the comments apparently just assuming the NYT article contradicted Mr. Alexander, when it does not -- fatally weakens your subsequent argument.
Even if those events are not especially relevant to the matter at hand, your eagerness to cling to easily spotted incorrect narratives makes you an unreliable narrator.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/capitol-riot-deaths/
You're not even trying to communicate.
I agree that reform SHOULD have come from the inside. However, was there any sign that was possible considering the direction the universities have been trending for the past 50 years? Was there ever a blip where they even became slightly more conservative? Have there been any efforts by the ever expanding administrative apparatus to improve real viewpoint diversity, instead of trying to find people with higher melanin levels that say the things affluent white liberals already want to hear? I don't think so. Education rotted like a fish, from the head all they down to its stinking tail.
"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"
"I have to say that I am discouraged to see a fellow academic supporting Trump’s approach in any capacity."
So basically TDS.
My favorite part of this post is the dubious claim that the people Geher doesn't like should be thankful to the higher education racket for forcing them to take part in that racket before they were allowed past various forms of gatekeeping.
My favorite FAVORITE part is when Geher claims that Trump owes the University of Pennsylvania for the position he's currently in. I'm sure someone like Trump (born to a wealthy real estate developer) would have had no future in real estate development without the opportunities a college education afforded him.
The "in any capacity" is especially rich.
Example: Haven't heard about it lately, but in his first administration there was a desire to forbid paywalls on any academic paper that involved government funds.
Isn't this something that ... well ... all of agree about?
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.
Trump isn't required for the GOP to pay better attention to how they have been enabling woke excesses in academia. But we can't deny that he was the one who finally took that extra step of using the full power of the Presidency in the effort to combat it.
I just hope that the effort continues after his term ends. It will take a lot more than just one presidential term to bring things back to an even keel.
Agreed. Trump's personal wealth and personality give him the strength to take on the new "plantation owner" class that academia increasingly sounds like in their entitlement and refusal to follow civil rights laws.