The climate on college campuses since the terrorist attacks in Israel on October 7th has caught the attention of the powerbrokers in Washington, most notably, President Donald Trump.
The Trump administration has formed a task force to root out antisemitism on campuses across the country, and numerous other federal offices and interest groups — such as the American Jewish Committee — are mobilizing to join this effort. The result is that many of the most prominent universities are now in the crosshairs of an angry administration.
In response to the Trump administration’s attacks on higher education, nearly 500 college presidents and deans signed an open letter from the American Association of Colleges and Universities and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, titled “A Call for Constructive Engagement.” The college leaders argue against “undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses.” They continue: “Our colleges and universities share a commitment to serve as centers of open inquiry where, in their pursuit of truth, faculty, students, and staff are free to exchange ideas and opinions across a full range of viewpoints without fear of retribution, censorship, or deportation.”
These are laudable in theory, but, if the past 18 months are any indication, they fall flat in practice.
The culture on college campuses is no longer conducive to genuine debate and civil disagreement. Campuses have long been home to progressive movements. The Free Speech Movement began at the University of California, Berkeley, in a wave of opposition to the war in Vietnam and in support of the civil rights movement. These pivotal moments in history serve as inspiration for today’s students who celebrate an activist tradition and embrace the fact that our institutions of higher education have been centers for meaningful cultural, political, and social change. However, the recent protests turned against the ideals of the early to mid-20th century. Students are quick to shout down speakers, disrupt class discussions, and occupy buildings. These protests have crossed the line from open expression into violence and intimidation. The Free Speech Movement has evolved to create a culture of its ultimate undoing.
With this backdrop, the AACU letter indicates that the moment funding is threatened, college decision-makers claim that they “serve as centers of open inquiry.” Where was this public call for open inquiry when students were scared to speak, intimidated, assaulted, harassed, and went into hiding during the recent wave of antisemitism?
By signing the AACU statement, these select presidents present a distorted picture of the nature of our colleges and universities. The signatories are justified in upholding academic freedom as a safeguard against government intrusion. Yet it is difficult not to view this sudden defense with skepticism when it comes from those who have shown indifference, or even hostility, toward academic freedom when it served the interest of their political opponents. For years, presidents and deans had the power to address issues of viewpoint diversity and bias on their respective campuses, but they remained silent.
Harvard and Columbia are making endless headlines, but this hypocrisy is widespread where action is rarely taken against disruptors and agitators are aware of few consequences. I teach at Sarah Lawrence College, where correct words are offered but action is rarely taken when it comes to promoting actual viewpoint diversity and protecting community members. By threatening the bottom line, significant change may come.
With the closing of another academic year, and in preparation for the next, college presidents should take action on their newly held views on academic freedom.
First, schools should commit to a policy of institutional neutrality. It is in the interest of schools to encourage debates, not settle them. This isn’t new. The University of Chicago’s Kalven Report from 1967 outlines that when a university takes a stance on an issue, it creates a chilling effect on speech, publicly proclaiming what virtues and ideas are acceptable and demonizing and marginalizing dissent, disagreement which ultimately closes off debate, dialogue, and discovery as a result.
Second, and relatedly, policies should be content-neutral. For example, if a university has a speaker on campus, the university will not take a position on the speaker or their message. These policies must apply throughout the school, and the presidents and the administration must have the fortitude to stick to them.
IS HARVARD DOOMED? AN INSIDE LOOK AT THE UNIVERSITY’S FINANCIAL SITUATION
And third, schools must showcase and affirm that they are incubators of ideas and cherish debate and disagreement. Instead of being isolated institutions, — institutions of higher education must explicitly and deliberately engage with a multitude of communities and restore confidence in their value as centers of innovation, mobility, and value creation.
Much has been written about the lack of trust in higher education. However, colleges and universities have a tremendous opportunity to save themselves from the brink. Presidents must have the courage to commit to not only tolerating different perspectives but also encouraging them. Higher education is an enterprise, at its core, committed to the pursuit of expertise and truth. Our institutions of higher education can return to this seminal role with the right leadership and incentives.
Samuel J. Abrams is a professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.