The End of the Enlightenment?
Today the concept of academic freedom may seem obvious to Americans. But the roots of academic freedom, which can be traced back to medieval European universities, were never certain. Back then, when scholars demanded autonomy from Church and state, they were often rebuked—or worse.
What began as a slow-burning fuse eventually led to the concept of the modern research university a few centuries later, found in the writing of the English philosopher Francis Bacon and his 1627 novel, New Atlantis. There, Bacon envisioned a college called Salomon's House, in which scientists and others worked in an atmosphere of generosity and freethinking. This college came to be known as 'the noblest foundation (as we think) that ever was upon the earth; and the lantern of this kingdom,' as the Governor of Bacon's fictional utopia put it. 'It is dedicated to the study of the works and creatures of God.'
Twelve of the resident fellows, called 'merchants of light,' sailed to foreign countries to bring back books and knowledge from other lands. Several devised experiments in both the 'mechanical arts' and the 'liberal sciences,' eventually creating such technologies as microscopes and hearing aids. Invention flourished in an ethos of imagination and unfettered investigation. Bacon was a forerunner of the Enlightenment. After centuries of intellectual progress, Americans must face a terrible question: Are we now descending from light into dark?
Since April 22, more than 500 leaders of America's colleges, universities, and scholarly societies have signed a statement protesting the unprecedented interference of the Trump administration into higher education, interference that included external oversight of admissions criteria, faculty hiring, accreditation, ideological capture, and, in some cases, curriculum. As the statement says, higher education in America is open to constructive reform. However, 'we must oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses.'
Especially targeted by the administration have been international students.
At my university, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, at least nine members of our community—students, recent graduates, and postdocs—have had their visas and immigration status unexpectedly revoked. MIT's president, Sally Kornbluth, recently sent a letter to our community, part of which read:
'To live up to our great mission, MIT is driven to pursue the highest standards of intellectual and creative excellence. That means we are, and must be, in the business of attracting and supporting exceptionally talented people, the kind of people with the drive, skill and daring to see, discover and invent things no one else can. To find those rare people, we open ourselves to talent from every corner of the United States and from around the globe.' In the past, MIT and the many other institutions of higher learning in America have been Bacon's 'merchants of light.'
Both tangible and intangible benefits flow from academic freedom. First, the tangible. The business world should be alarmed by the proposed jamming of the greatest engine of invention, innovation, and economic prosperity in our nation. To name just a few examples: The internet, in the form of the ARPANET, was developed by researchers at UCLA, Stanford, and MIT under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in the late 1960s and '70s. Key concepts and materials for lithium-ion batteries were developed at the University of Texas and the University of Oxford. The first artificial heart was developed by Robert Jarvik and colleagues at the University of Utah. Google originated as a research project by Larry Page and Sergey Brin at Stanford. Natural-language processing, neural networks, and deep learning—all fundamental parts of AI—came out of research at MIT, Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, and the University of Toronto. Pivotal work in CRISPR gene editing was done by Jennifer Doudna at UC Berkeley. (She received the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for this work.) Many other technological inventions, although not directly produced in our universities, were nurtured by the training and knowledge gained in them: computers, vaccines, smartphones, social-media platforms, Global Positioning System (GPS), insulin synthesis, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), lasers.
Of course, the intellectual and creative freedom in America has enabled great productivity far beyond the precincts of science and technology. Exemplars include William James in philosophy and psychology, Toni Morrison in literature, Noam Chomsky in linguistics and cognitive science, Hannah Arendt in political theory, Martha Nussbaum in law and ethics, Margaret Mead in anthropology, W. E. B. Du Bois in sociology, John Rawls in political philosophy, Susan Sontag in cultural criticism, John Dewey in philosophy and education, and many, many more.
Our country, a relatively young country but a country weaned on freedom dating back to the American Revolution of 1775, has helped build the modern world, has helped human beings reach their fullest capacity and creativity. Academic freedom is what has made America great.
By contrast, invention has been suffocated in authoritarian countries with choke holds on academic freedom. In China, despite major investments in research and higher education, topics such as political reform, Tiananmen, and human rights are taboo. These restrictions have limited open inquiry in the social sciences and humanities. In Iran, restrictions on gender studies, religious critique, and internet freedom have weakened its academic institutions and discouraged global collaboration. In Russia, the crackdown on academic freedom since 2010 has driven out many independent thinkers and scientists, weakening innovation and policy critiques. Talented academics and researchers frequently leave for countries with more freedom, taking their expertise and innovation potential with them, as illustrated recently by the very public departure of the Yale University professor Jason Stanley, who is leaving the U.S. for Canada.
Where restrictions have been lifted, flowers bloom. South Korea was a military dictatorship up to the 1980s, and then became a democracy. In the authoritarian era, universities were tightly controlled, with crackdowns on student protests and censorship in curricula. After the removal of these restrictions, South Korea quickly became a global leader in technology and innovation, home to companies including Samsung and LG. Taiwan transitioned from martial law under the Kuomintang to a liberal democracy in the 1990s. The humanities and social sciences, previously constrained by anti-communist ideology, expanded significantly. Taiwan developed a strong knowledge economy, with competitive universities and thriving biotech and electronics industries. In particular, Taiwan is the home of the world's leading semiconductor foundry, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing.
What exactly is academic freedom? It is the freedom to express and debate ideas without fear of censorship or reprisal. It is the freedom to explore. It is the freedom to let the imagination wander. It is the freedom to exchange knowledge with colleagues and others. It is the freedom to question authority and received wisdom. It is the freedom to test ideas against experiment and to reject those ideas that fail the test. It is the freedom to be honest, even if that honesty challenges prevailing views. It is the freedom to be one's true self.
Academic freedom is the oxygen and the light of higher education. Growing things need both. Aren't colleges and universities the nurseries of faculty, students, and their surrounding society? We need air. Instinctively, we seek light, just as some plants will change their pattern of growth in order to receive the sunlight needed for growth. It's called phototropism. The petals of sunflowers actually track the movement of the sun throughout the day, changing their direction to point toward the sun.
I have served on the faculties of several universities in America and visited a hundred more. And I have felt intellectually safe in all of them. More than safe, I have felt encouraged to express myself and to listen and debate and question. The ethos of academic freedom is subtle. It is a kind of liberation, a buoyancy of the spirit, a nourishment of the mind. It is a basking in the light.
Academic freedom is the greatest lesson we can give to our students. Our young people are shaping the future. Do we want them to be afraid to express their ideas? Do we want them to be afraid to explore, to invent, to challenge the status quo? Do we want them to be afraid of being who they are?
We set examples for our young people and students, moral as well as intellectual. Do we want them to see us restrict what we teach because of the rules imposed by some outside authority? Do we want them to see us hide evidence that challenges a prevailing viewpoint? Do we want them to see us deny admission to other qualified students because of quotas or ideological litmus tests or country of origin? Do we want them to see us conform to outside decrees that undermine our values? Do we want them to see us prioritize money above all other things? Do we want them to see us as cowards, lacking the courage to stand behind our values and convictions?
The surrender of academic freedom in America and, in fact, freedom of all kinds may happen gradually, little by little. First with the disproportionate power of money and the wealthy who have it, then with attacks on the free press, the control of information, the weakening of checks and balances, the suppression of dissent, the surveillance of the population, and finally the normalization of repression. In George Orwell's novel 1984, a superstate called Oceania is ruled by a dictator called Big Brother, who is supported by his personality cult and the Thought Police. The protagonist of the novel, Winston Smith, works for the state, at the Ministry of Truth, but he secretly hates the ruling regime. He joins what he thinks is a resistance group called the Brotherhood but which turns out to be part of the state apparatus. Smith is then arrested and subjected to months of brainwashing. Eventually, he is released and comes to believe that he loves Big Brother after all. This is what happens when darkness replaces light, when the freedom to think, dream, and invent is squashed. We cannot let that happen to us in America.
*Illustration Sources: The Naturalist / Getty; mikroman6 / Getty; Huizeng Hu / Getty.
Article originally published at The Atlantic
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk: I apologise for some of my Trump posts
Elon Musk has made a public apology to Donald Trump for posting incendiary comments on social media that imploded their relationship. The billionaire Tesla founder, who had been one of Mr Trump's closest advisers, called for the US president to be impeached and claimed he was named in the Epstein files. 'I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far,' Mr Musk wrote on Wednesday morning. He did not specify which ones, although he has since deleted the claim about Mr Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. Mr Trump said that Mr Musk had 'lost his mind' in the meltdown, which started with a disagreement over the Republican's so-called 'big, beautiful' spending bill. Mr Musk had been hired as a 'special government employee' to head up the new Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), controversially tasked with downsizing the federal workforce and slashing spending. While he enjoyed some success in his mission, he was upset with Mr Trump's decision to open the spending taps in his bill, saying it was undoing his team's work. Mr Musk exited the White House at the end of May, ending a turbulent 130-day stint in Mr Trump's team, just days after he said he was 'disappointed' with the new budget. A acordial public farewell to the man who appointed himself as Trump's 'first buddy', both said Mr Musk would stay on as an adviser. He was handed a gold key to the White House. But the simmering dissent went public last week when the pair began trading insults online, with Mr Musk denouncing the president's budget as 'a disgusting abomination' that will bankrupt the US. The Tesla billionaire called on Americans to help 'kill the bill', which includes multi-trillion-dollar tax breaks and a boost to defence spending. Mr Trump was quick to hit back, claiming that the Tesla billionaire had been irked by the legislation ending tax credit worth billions of dollars to his electric vehicle company. Credit: Reuters Their spat rapidly intensified when Musk called for the president's impeachment and claimed the Republican was 'in the Epstein files' – the dossier of US government information held on the late paedophile financier. In response, Mr Trump threatened to cancel US government contracts with Mr Musk's companies, which include SpaceX. By Saturday, Musk had deleted the worst of his tweets, in an apparent sign he was hoping to repair the rift between them. Yet, the damage was done. Mr Trump declared his relationship with the South African-born tech tycoon was over and that he had 'no desire' to mend it, accusing Mr Musk of being 'disrespectful to the office of the President'. Mr Trump also warned that there would be 'serious consequences' if Mr Musk switched his allegiance to the Democrats and funded rival candidates who would vote against the bill. JD Vance, the US vice-president, said Mr Musk had made a 'huge mistake' in picking a fight with Mr Trump. Over the weekend, he said he hoped he would 'come back into the fold', but acknowledged that might be difficult after he went 'nuclear' during the row. Credit: YouTube/ Theo Von Mr Musk bankrolled Mr Trump's election run to the eye-watering tune of $250 million (£185 million) and was rewarded with his 'special government employee' role. For months after Mr Trump's inauguration, Mr Musk rarely left his side, travelling on Air Force One, moving into Mar-a-Lago and having the president babysit his four-year-old son in the Oval Office. The night of the election, Mr Trump declared of Musk 'a star is born'. Weeks later, Mr Musk confessed he loved the president 'as much as a straight man can love another man'. The messy breakdown of their bromance, however, had been heavily predicted. Mr Trump, who has now refocused attention elsewhere including to the deployment of troops to the LA riots, recently told reporters he wasn't even thinking of Mr Musk. According to reports, he is considering giving away the red Tesla he bought from Musk earlier this year. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Germany has evidence of Russia's plans to attack NATO, says Germany's spy chief
Bruno Kahl, President of Germany's Federal Intelligence Service (BND), has said that Russia is preparing to test the credibility of NATO's Article 5, adding that German intelligence has concrete evidence of the Kremlin's preparations for potential aggression against the Alliance. Source: Kahl in a podcast for German outlet Table Briefings, as reported by The Times Details: The BND chief emphasised that Moscow no longer believes in the reliability of NATO's collective defence system – particularly Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which guarantees a joint response in the event of an attack on a member state. He warned that the Kremlin may attempt to test this provision in practice. Quote: "We are very sure, and we have intelligence evidence to back this up, that [Russia's full-scale invasion of] Ukraine is only one step on Russia's path towards the west." More details: Kahl clarified that this "doesn't mean that we expect large tank battalions to roll from the east to the west". German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius has issued similar warnings in the past, repeatedly stating that Germany must be "ready for war" by the end of this decade. "Our experts estimate that it could be possible within a period of five to eight years," Pistorius said in an interview with German TV news service Tagesspiegel last year. In its February report, Denmark's military intelligence concluded that after the war in Ukraine ends, Russia could redeploy substantial forces to the borders of other European countries within six months. Kahl also warned that Russia seeks to "push NATO back to its 1990s boundaries", "kick out" the US from Europe and "expand its influence by any means necessary". "We need to nip this in the bud," Kahl stressed. Meanwhile, he noted that despite certain tensions, cooperation with the United States remains stable. "The Americans take Article 5 very seriously, but they rightly insist Europe must do its part," he said. Sinan Selen, Deputy Director General of Germany's Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), stated that Russia is increasingly using cyberattacks and sabotage against Western countries. "We have noticed that Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine has led to our cyber and espionage defences being increasingly tested," Selen said. An annual report by the BfV reveals that Russia has begun actively deploying so-called "low-level agents" to carry out sabotage operations, particularly placing incendiary devices in parcels, resulting in a series of fires at logistics centres across Europe. Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The days around Trump's trade war announcements saw spikes in lawmaker stock market transactions
In the days before President Donald Trump suddenly paused most of the punishing tariffs on foreign countries he had revealed in early April, more than a dozen congressional lawmakers were tied to thousands of dollars' worth of stock transactions, including significant purchases as the US stock market tumbled, a CNN analysis of financial filings shows. Seven Democrats and three Republicans reported stock transactions made on April 7, two days before Trump instituted the pause, according to a CNN review of a database of congressional financial filings compiled by Capitol Trades, a platform by the financial data research firm 2iQ which tracks lawmakers' financial activity. That day, a post on X erroneously suggested a pause was already underway, tumbling stocks and sending the markets into a state of turbulence. The next day, on the eve of Trump's tariff reprieve, seven Republicans and four Democrats were tied to transactions, filings show. The White House that day announced it would impose hefty tariffs on China and the S&P 500 closed at its lowest level so far this year. Then came April 9. 'BE COOL!' and 'THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY,' Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform that day, hours before his White House announced a 90-day pause on tariffs against a number of countries save for China. The announcement set the S&P 500 on track to post its biggest single-day gain since October 2008. House and Senate lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have long traded stocks, and their reported transactions so far this Congress have largely mirrored Americans' high volume of trading activity amid the frenetic market shifts fueled by the president's whipsaw economic policy. While lawmakers who spoke with CNN denied having advance briefings, some who bought ahead of the president's tariff reprieve stood to make significant gains after it spurred a market rebound. Lawmakers told CNN the trades were made largely by third-party financial advisors with unilateral control over their portfolios. But experts and some on Capitol Hill say questions around the timing of the transactions strikes at the heart of an ethical and optical question that has long dogged Congress: Can lawmakers play the market without generating suspicion their access to information gives them an unfair advantage, or should they ban the practice altogether? 'At a time where there was significant or important non-public information swirling around Washington, the public can't help but fear that members of Congress are using their access to information to personally profit,' Indiana University Maurer School of Law Professor Donna Nagy, who has testified before Congress on the issue, told CNN after viewing the trading data. 'And whether that perception is true or not, it is destructive. It fuels a corrosive belief that lawmakers are using their positions for purposes of profit and not for the public interest.' Lawmakers, their spouses, and children are permitted to make trades but they are mandated to report any activity done on their behalf within 45 days. They are only required to disclose a monetary value range for trades. From March 31 — just before the president's April 2 'Liberation Day' announcement of tariffs of at least 10% across all countries — through the April 9 pause, a total of 35 lawmakers (19 Republicans and 16 Democrats) reported purchases between about $8.6 million and $27.9 million and sales between about $5.9 million and $22.4 million across 1,265 transactions. Not all of the trades were individual stocks; some involved were mutual funds or public bonds. From March 31 through April 9, Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna reported the most transactions at 438, while GOP Rep. Kevin Hern reported the single highest-value transaction of up to $5 million on April 4. Eleven lawmakers reported one transaction. Fourteen lawmakers reported two transactions or fewer. The transactions Khanna reported, his communications director Sarah Drory told CNN, were not stock trades but part of a trust managed by an independent third party that stems from money his wife had before they were married. Hern spokeswoman Miranda Dabney, meanwhile, told CNN: 'Rep. Hern does not have day-to-day management or control over his stock portfolio or his businesses.' In statements provided to CNN, representatives for the lawmakers who reported trades during that period pointed to various agreements with third-party financial advisors and noted that some purchases were bonds and not individual stocks. The offices told CNN the lawmakers are not directly involved in the purchases. 'President Trump was telling the entire world for months, and even decades, about the benefits of tariffs. It was even a central component of his 2024 presidential campaign. Suggesting any behind-the-scenes coordination is ridiculous,' a spokesperson for Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said, pushing back on concerns around the timing of the trades. The Georgia Republican – whose 11 reported purchases on April 8 included between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of stock each, according to the filings – does not direct her own trades but instead has a fiduciary agreement with her portfolio manager, the spokesperson said. Around Trump's trade war, a number of Republicans publicly pledged support for Trump's economic policy while protecting their own financial interests. Sen. Markwayne Mullin sold between $290,000 and $700,000 in stocks across industries from a joint account on April 8 through 'an independent, third-party operator firm that manages all stock portfolio investments on his behalf,' according to his spokesperson. At the same time, the Oklahoma Republican was publicly supporting the president's escalating trade war, despite the financial decisions that appeared to mirror broader consumer concerns. Hern, the fourth-highest ranking Republican in the House said on February 13, shortly after Trump announced 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from all countries: 'These reciprocal tariffs will incentivize other nations to level the playing field and remove long-standing, exorbitant tariffs.' On March 31 — two days before Trump announced expansive tariffs on April 2 — a trust affiliated with Hern sold between $500,000 and $1 million worth of structured investments. For Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, one of the Republicans behind the push to ban lawmaker stock trading, having an intermediary conduct the trades does little to assuage concern. 'Members of Congress should come here to advance the interests of their constituents, not to enrich themselves using stock trading,' Roy said. Rhode Island Rep. Seth Magaziner, one of the leading negotiators on the Democratic side of the effort to ban congressional stock trading who participates in regular meetings on the issue, similarly told CNN: 'We should eliminate the opportunity for members of Congress to engage in any sort of insider trading because the opportunity clearly exists.' The director of government affairs at the Project on Government Oversight Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette told CNN, 'You occasionally have these moments where it really clarifies and distills down just how bad this is. And I think the tariff announcements and subsequent trades and transactions are a prime example of that.' March 3 — the day before Trump levied an additional 10% tariff on China and a 25% tariff on Mexican and Canadian imports with some exceptions — saw the highest number of lawmakers reporting stock trading in a single day through mid-April, according to CNN's analysis. Sixteen lawmakers, evenly split among Democrats and Republicans, reported hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of transactions that day — most of them purchases. The president had confirmed at an afternoon White House event on March 3 that the tariffs would take effect the next day, leading to a sharp selloff in stocks. At that point, March 3 had so far been the worst day for the market. Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Dave McCormick, who reported purchases between $50,000 and $100,000, was the only lawmaker to report having personally traded on March 3. McCormick did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Lawmakers reached by CNN sought to distance themselves from the transactions filed during those key dates around Trump's tariffs announcements. CNN reached out to the 16 lawmakers who reported transactions on March 3, and the 35 lawmakers, some of whom overlapped, who reported having transactions between March 31 and April 9. Those who responded to CNN said they were unaware of trades being made through various agreements with financial advisors. They said the filings did not reflect traditional stock trades and that they had no interactions with the administration around key announcements. Some told CNN the filings reflected trades or reinvestments through a joint account or by a spouse. Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer is waiting on congressional approval for a blind trust, a spokesman told CNN. GOP Rep. Bruce Westerman, meanwhile, has instructed his investment advisor to not invest in individual stocks and is in the process of putting his assets back into a fund, after receiving heat for recent investments, spokesperson Kinsey Featherston shared. Democratic Rep. Julie Johnson has begun the process of divesting her stocks, managed by an independent third party, into ETFs and mutual funds upon becoming a member of Congress, her spokesperson told CNN. Some said they supported efforts to ban lawmaker trading of individual stocks, even those with active portfolios, including Khanna and GOP Rep. Rob Bresnahan. The STOCK Act passed with overwhelming support in 2012 to increase transparency about lawmaker stock trading and made it illegal for lawmakers to use inside information for financial benefit. But lawmakers and experts argue problems persist with existing reporting structures and enforcement mechanisms. Along with only being required to report a monetary range of transactions, lawmakers also don't report the timing of a trade on a given day, which could be useful context for those determining whether seemingly well-timed trades could be based on non-public information. There is also currently no designated oversight body to determine whether lawmakers hold a conflict of interest in their trading practices. Legal experts say that even lawmakers who use financial advisors to trade on their behalf are not necessarily insulated from scrutiny, and it depends on the details of the agreement. The $200 fine for late filings is hardly a deterrent, experts argue. 'That doesn't pass the sniff test even a little bit because there is no guarantee that they're not talking to those people because there is no prohibition against them from talking to those financial advisors,' Hedtler-Gaudette said of the arrangements most lawmakers have with their financial advisors. As efforts to ban congressional stock trading have fallen short, scholars and ethics experts have argued that members of Congress are privy to more information than the average American and are often faced with legislative decisions that overlap with their investment portfolios. 'It is essentially completely legal for a congressman, congresswoman or senator to go to Goldman Sachs, Blackrock or Vanguard and be like, 'Hey I'm proposing this regulation, what do you think will be the impact on the market?' There is nothing to stop you from that,' said Dr. Jan Hanousek Jr., an assistant professor at the University of Memphis who has studied the patterns of lawmaker stock trading. 'This is an insane problem.' Beyond ethics concerns, a 2022 Fox News poll found that 70% of respondents supported banning members of Congress and their families from trading stock, while a January UC San Diego study found that even when lawmakers make their trading practices public, it 'erodes' the legitimacy of Congress. The push to ban lawmaker stock trading last peaked when dozens of federal officials and some lawmakers made lucrative stock and mutual fund trades as the government was preparing for the financial onslaught of the Covid-19 pandemic in early 2020. The Department of Justice has since closed investigations into the moves. But in a sign this Congress' bipartisan group of lawmakers may be closer to finding the political will to ban the practice, House Speaker Mike Johnson, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and the president himself have publicly supported the effort, following news of lawmaker stock trading activity around the tariff announcements. 'I have been working on this issue for years,' Roy told CNN. 'We can and should fix the problem during this term now that President Trump and the Speaker have signaled their support for the measure. We have the will and the mandate of the American people to do this. Let's deliver.' CNN's John Towfighi contributed to this report.