Latest news with #HowFascismWorks:ThePoliticsofUsandThem
The Age
04-08-2025
- Politics
- The Age
Trump wants to be sole arbiter of truth ... just like a real dictator
But without an objective scorekeeper, how can we know the score? That's the point. Trump wants to be the sole arbiter of truth. As the name of his social media company, Truth Social, implies. So part of Trump's agenda is about silencing competing voices, especially expert ones. That's one of his key motives for intimidating America's elite universities, for pursuing media companies for outlandishly large sums, for shutting down America's public broadcasters PBS and NPR, for unleashing an anti-science health secretary, RFK Jr, against the US National Institutes of Health and the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. But Trump's goal is much bigger than merely strangling voices speaking inconvenient truths. All dictators are censors. Xi Jinping, for example, has instructed the Chinese Communist Party that 'control over the internet is a matter of life and death for the Party'. Trump goes further. His original campaign mastermind, Steve Bannon, famously set out the MAGA philosophy. Rather than conduct endless debates with the enemy in a contest to win an argument, simply 'flood the zone with shit'. Not with counterarguments or factual rebuttals. Just shit. Loading It's a method uniquely suited to the age of the conspiracy theory, which is not new, amplified by 'social' media, which is. Trump is perhaps the world's most effective creator and promoter of conspiracy theories. There's a Wikipedia entry titled 'List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump'. As of Monday, it contained 87 separate theories. It has an addendum of other conspiracy theorists whom Trump has either supported, endorsed or hired. The conspiracy theory that first brought Trump to mainstream political attention was the 'birther' claim that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and therefore disqualified from the presidency, and a secret Muslim, to boot. He accused the 'mainstream media' of refusing to report the theory. To the conspiratorially minded, this confirmed that the media must be part of the conspiracy. Such internal consistency is key to the conspiracy theory; it's self-confirming. 'The function of conspiracy theories,' writes Yale professor of philosophy Jason Stanley, 'is to impugn and malign their targets, but not necessarily by convincing their audience that they are true,' he writes in his 2018 book How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them. Loading Hannah Arendt, he points out, argued in her work The Origins of Totalitarianism that a characteristic of modern masses is that 'they do not believe in anything visible, in the reality of their own experience; they do not trust their eyes and ears, but only their imaginations'. Stanley suggests that the birther claim was obviously far-fetched, but that it was nonetheless effective even among people who didn't fully believe it. Because conspiracy theories 'provide simple explanations for otherwise irrational emotions such as resentment or xenophobic fear in the face of perceived threats'. This is comforting for an anxious people, and once the comfort is accepted by a public 'its members will cease to be guided by reason in political deliberation'. Amplified by the staccato cognitive bombardment of 'social' media, this is a people ripe for mass confusion, delusion and doubt. The leader, in this epistemology, becomes the sole source of truth. Is unemployment going up or down? Is it American carnage or the golden age? Who knows any more? The Washington Post 's slogan is 'democracy dies in darkness'. But Bannon and Trump aren't trying to make America's screens go dark; they are lighting them up with disorienting flashes of non-stop nonsense. Democracy, they believe, dies amid induced dementia. Bannon promised a reporter in 2016 that the coming era would be 'as exciting as the 1930s', the time of tyrants rising. So far, so good.
Sydney Morning Herald
04-08-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Trump wants to be sole arbiter of truth ... just like a real dictator
But without an objective scorekeeper, how can we know the score? That's the point. Trump wants to be the sole arbiter of truth. As the name of his social media company, Truth Social, implies. So part of Trump's agenda is about silencing competing voices, especially expert ones. That's one of his key motives for intimidating America's elite universities, for pursuing media companies for outlandishly large sums, for shutting down America's public broadcasters PBS and NPR, for unleashing an anti-science health secretary, RFK Jr, against the US National Institutes of Health and the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. But Trump's goal is much bigger than merely strangling voices speaking inconvenient truths. All dictators are censors. Xi Jinping, for example, has instructed the Chinese Communist Party that 'control over the internet is a matter of life and death for the Party'. Trump goes further. His original campaign mastermind, Steve Bannon, famously set out the MAGA philosophy. Rather than conduct endless debates with the enemy in a contest to win an argument, simply 'flood the zone with shit'. Not with counterarguments or factual rebuttals. Just shit. Loading It's a method uniquely suited to the age of the conspiracy theory, which is not new, amplified by 'social' media, which is. Trump is perhaps the world's most effective creator and promoter of conspiracy theories. There's a Wikipedia entry titled 'List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump'. As of Monday, it contained 87 separate theories. It has an addendum of other conspiracy theorists whom Trump has either supported, endorsed or hired. The conspiracy theory that first brought Trump to mainstream political attention was the 'birther' claim that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and therefore disqualified from the presidency, and a secret Muslim, to boot. He accused the 'mainstream media' of refusing to report the theory. To the conspiratorially minded, this confirmed that the media must be part of the conspiracy. Such internal consistency is key to the conspiracy theory; it's self-confirming. 'The function of conspiracy theories,' writes Yale professor of philosophy Jason Stanley, 'is to impugn and malign their targets, but not necessarily by convincing their audience that they are true,' he writes in his 2018 book How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them. Loading Hannah Arendt, he points out, argued in her work The Origins of Totalitarianism that a characteristic of modern masses is that 'they do not believe in anything visible, in the reality of their own experience; they do not trust their eyes and ears, but only their imaginations'. Stanley suggests that the birther claim was obviously far-fetched, but that it was nonetheless effective even among people who didn't fully believe it. Because conspiracy theories 'provide simple explanations for otherwise irrational emotions such as resentment or xenophobic fear in the face of perceived threats'. This is comforting for an anxious people, and once the comfort is accepted by a public 'its members will cease to be guided by reason in political deliberation'. Amplified by the staccato cognitive bombardment of 'social' media, this is a people ripe for mass confusion, delusion and doubt. The leader, in this epistemology, becomes the sole source of truth. Is unemployment going up or down? Is it American carnage or the golden age? Who knows any more? The Washington Post 's slogan is 'democracy dies in darkness'. But Bannon and Trump aren't trying to make America's screens go dark; they are lighting them up with disorienting flashes of non-stop nonsense. Democracy, they believe, dies amid induced dementia. Bannon promised a reporter in 2016 that the coming era would be 'as exciting as the 1930s', the time of tyrants rising. So far, so good.
Yahoo
07-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Yale professor sending 'a warning to Americans' — moving to Canada over political climate at top US schools
Jason Stanley, a Yale philosophy professor and author of How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them, is leaving the United States to take up a teaching position at the University of Toronto — a decision he says is driven entirely by the political climate under the Trump administration. The federal government has threatened to withhold funding from elite institutions like Yale and Columbia as part of its so-called security reforms. I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast) Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can access this $1B private real estate fund (with as little as $10) Here are 3 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you? While Stanley remains critical of Yale's handling of his academic freedom, he claims Columbia has gone a step further — capitulating to political pressure from the White House by forcing out faculty, tightening protest rules, increasing campus policing and reorganizing departments such as Middle East studies. 'It has nothing to do with me.' Stanley told MSNBC. 'It has everything to do with my children, and my desire to send a warning to Americans.' Stanley may be uprooting his life with a new job waiting across the border — but for many Americans, the move is far more complicated than booking a one-way ticket. Back in 2016, when Donald Trump was first elected, countless Americans — celebrities Amy Schumer and Snoop Dogg included — threatened to head north. But few actually did. Despite the shared border, Canadian immigration lawyer Ryan Rosenberg says the move isn't nearly as simple as it sounds. ''What do you mean I can't move to Canada next week?'' is the reaction clients typically have about Canadian immigration requirements, he told CBC News. Rosenberg, managing partner at Larlee Rosenberg in Vancouver, launched a cheeky website last year called with the slogan: "Tired of Trump? Thinking about Canada? We can help." But according to him, fewer than 5% of inquiries ever turn into a formal application — mostly because one key requirement stops Americans in their tracks: without a job offer, they can't just pack up and go. And now, Americans looking to flee a volatile political climate are facing another hurdle: a federal government in Ottawa that's actively trying to curb immigration. Ottawa-based immigration lawyer Betsy Kane says that unless applicants speak French or have in-demand skills, their options are slim. 'For somebody living in the States who wants to look at opportunities in Canada, it's pretty difficult right now and you really need to have a job offer in a specific field," Kane told CBC News. Read more: Trump warns his tariffs will spark a 'disturbance' in America — use this 1 dead-simple move to help shockproof your retirement plans ASAP Even if you manage to cross the border, settling into life in Canada isn't all smooth sailing — especially when it comes to retirement planning. According to a BMO survey, Canadians believe they'll need around $1.7 million to retire comfortably. That figure is similar to American expectations — but the weaker Canadian dollar complicates things. With the exchange rate sitting at 1.42 CAD to 1 USD at time of writing, saving and spending in Canada could shrink the value of your nest egg over time. And if you decide to return to the U.S. down the line, your Canadian savings might not go as far as you'd hoped. Currency fluctuations also affect day-to-day spending. From groceries to gas, price tags can feel unexpectedly steep if you're not accounting for the exchange rate. Health care is another major consideration. While Canada's universal system is often praised, newcomers don't get access right away. Some provinces have a waiting period of up to three months before public coverage kicks in — and during that time, you'll need private insurance. Even with coverage, services like dental, vision and prescriptions often come with extra out-of-pocket costs. So, while Canada may seem like a safe haven, the reality is far more complex — and costly — than many Americans expect. Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says this 7-step plan 'works every single time' to kill debt, get rich in America — and that 'anyone' can do it Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead Cost-of-living in America is still out of control — and prices could keep climbing. Use these 3 'real assets' to protect your wealth today, no matter what Trump does This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
In the Academy and the Legal World, It's Time to Stay and Fight
When James Baldwin returned to the United States in 1957 from exile in Paris, he wished to join the growing struggle against 350 years of violent oppression with his feet on the ground, his eyes on the action, and his body in danger. 'I could, simply, no longer sit around in Paris discussing the Algerian and the Black American problem,' Baldwin wrote in an essay reflecting on his decision to return. 'Everybody else was paying their dues, and it was time I went home and paid mine.' This is an expression of courageous solidarity, a commitment to stand with others at a time of great stress and opportunity. Contrast Baldwin's decision with that of three Yale professors to abandon the United States at one of its most vulnerable moments. Historian Marci Shore, philosopher Jason Stanley, and historian Timothy Snyder—all prominent scholars of authoritarianism—announced they will depart for the University of Toronto. They have all written important things about the global and American condition and no doubt will continue to do so. And we will all be better off for that. But they are making a clear, moral choice to exempt themselves from the consequences of their work as others choose to stay (or cannot leave for lack of resources or opportunity). Stanley, the author of, among other important books, How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them, explained that his decision to leave was 'entirely because of the political climate in the United States.' Stanley was particularly motivated by the recent decision of Columbia University, threatened with losing more than $400 million in federal science funding, to bow to President Donald Trump's demands that the university crack down on students who oppose the Israeli incursion into Gaza and that it put a department that employs scholars of the Middle East into receivership. 'When I saw Columbia completely capitulate, and I saw this vocabulary of, well, we're going to work behind the scenes because we're not going to get targeted—that whole way of thinking pre-supposes that some universities will get targeted, and you don't want to be one of those universities, and that's just a losing strategy,' Stanley told The Guardian. 'You've got to just band together and say an attack on one university is an attack on all universities. And maybe you lose that fight, but you're certainly going to lose this one if you give up before you fight.' Stanley is right to demand solidarity among institutions. In the past few weeks, we have seen universities of great status and power fold to the demands of the Trump movement even before being ordered to or threatened to. But despite the cowardice and shortsightedness of the board that governs Columbia, the university is not its leaders. Columbia University did not fail academia or the country; only its temporary leaders did. The strength of the university remains committed to resisting and doing good work for society. More than 100 faculty members and students have been protesting the university's decision to fold, each risking admonishment or worse from the administration. Many have been writing publicly against their bosses. That is courage. That is solidarity. It's a 90-minute train ride from New Haven to Manhattan. One would have hoped Yale professors upset with Columbia would join their colleagues on the streets of Morningside Heights rather than drive up the Queen Elizabeth Way to Toronto. Next in the sights of the administration seems to be Johns Hopkins University, which stands to lose $800 million in health research funding for unclear reasons. I can only guess that because Johns Hopkins is Trump rival Michael Bloomberg's alma mater and favorite beneficiary, Trump has chosen it for humiliation. It seems that Trump's people have figured out that if they attack one institution at a time (or a few at a time), they limit the opportunity for a unified defense. Had Columbia University leaders chosen to sue the Trump administration and take the hit to the university's scientists (as painful as that would be to all of us who would be denied the fruits of their research on cancer and other problems), it would have set an example for other universities to hold together in protest, mount a public campaign in favor of research and education, and work through the courts while waiting for Congress to flip to the Democrats (if there will be fair elections in 2026) and stem the attacks. We have seen a similar challenge to the country's largest, richest, and most influential law firms, as Trump issues orders to punish firms that work against his policies by suspending security clearances for their lawyers and restricting access to government buildings, officials, and contracting work. Two major law firms so far have bowed to Trump's extortion, and two others have sued to resist. Meanwhile, the legal profession at large remains silent and stunned by this attack on its ethics, values, and professionalism. Firms are mostly competing against one another for clients rather than seeking a way to stand for their long-term interest, let alone that of the country and the rule of law. While solidarity is the goal, powerful institutions like universities and law firms have an easy choice to make a stand. Vulnerable individuals under threat still have a difficult choice to make: Stay or run. Let's not presume this is a simple question, or that everyone's situation is the same. Baldwin had no children to care for; others do. Baldwin found new perspectives on himself and his country of birth by living and traveling beyond the United States. Still, when the fight was on, he returned to fight. For Stanley, the decision to run is personal as well as professional. He is the descendent of people who died in the Holocaust. He has spent much of the past few years teaching and lecturing in Ukraine, where he faces danger regularly. He does demonstrate personal courage consistently, even if it's outside the range of solidarity with his fellow Americans. Through both his writing and his teaching, Stanley is someone worthy of admiration. My choice to stay, fight, and to urge others to as well is also informed by my own experiences and conditions—and my own cowardice. In August 2017 I decided to stay home with my family as Nazis swarmed the streets of my town, Charlottesville, Virginia. I thought first of my child and how I did not want her to have to worry about my safety or risk losing me to violence. Many of my friends and neighbors made the opposite decision. They stood their ground as men with guns and clubs surrounded them and police stood back and watched. Hundreds of my neighbors needed medical attention. One of my fellow Charlottesvillians died. They were protecting my family; I was not. Nor was I protecting theirs. Reflecting the next day on my decision, I wrote in The New York Times, 'I now believe we made the wrong choice. Does my status as a parent make me special? It shouldn't. A young man named Dre Harris was ambushed in a parking lot and took dozens of blows by club-wielding thugs. He took them so I wouldn't have to. Next time I will stand on the street with my neighbors, even at the risk of injury or death. It's the least I can do to repay those who stood bravely this time.' My family chose this country in the late twentieth century, so to abandon it when it is most in need would betray my father's dreams and hopes. We chose the United States as the site for us to live and raise children in relative freedom and security. We love this country deeply because we chose it. Now all of that is threatened, including the very citizenship we have earned. Yet there is no way I would abandon all my father strived for in his life. I once asked my father, a professor of biophysics, why he chose the United States over the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, or any other English-speaking country where Indians have settled. He told me the dynamism and creativity of the American spirit, largely informed by waves of immigration and energized by its commitment to science and higher education, made that choice simple. When I consider what a writer or scholar should do in these moments, I don't necessarily turn to Baldwin as a model any more than I reflect on Hannah Arendt's experiences writing in the wake of the Holocaust. Baldwin's situation in 1957 did not resemble Arendt's in 1933, after she had been briefly jailed by the Gestapo and escaped to France to help Jewish children resettle safely in Palestine. Her second escape, in 1941, was from Paris to the United States, where she proceeded to form an intellectual network and write her most influential works, which, to this day, help people understand and resist various forms of authoritarianism and fascism. Because the threats to the United States from Trump and his allies only echo the deep roots of the oppression of Black Americans for 400 years and the Nazi takeover of Germany in the 1930s, we should not look to them, or any particular historical figure—a Havel, a Michnik, a Sakharov, a Tagore—as a model for resistance, or for the key for whether we should run or fight. Learning from previous moments of terror and resistance can be helpful and inspirational, but the threats we face are unique in history, even if modeled on and informed by those elsewhere and from the past. I see many more patterns that pertain to the United States in 2025 in twenty-first-century Hungary, Poland, Brazil, Argentina, India, and the Philippines. Each of these countries is, or has been recently, led by authoritarian leaders legitimately elected within increasingly illiberal democratic systems. The rise of authoritarianism in each has been a reaction to late-twentieth-century neoliberalism, the global convulsions of the 2008 economic crash, and the Covid-19 pandemic of 2020. Those who fight most effectively against oppressive parties do so from within as long as they can. They do not run preemptively. They push back with a commitment to solidarity. Poland and Brazil have in recent years seen a return (if fragile and temporary) to decent, democratic politics and the rule of law. India, it seems, could be lost for a long time. So for writers and scholars who offer us a model for effective and inspirational resistance at this moment, may I nominate Arundhati Roy? Roy continues to stand her ground in a country that has been slipping toward fascism sooner and faster than the United States. Roy has served time in prison for her writing. She continues to face repeated legal and death threats for her commitment to a just India. Roy could live well and write freely in any country in the world. She chooses bravely to stay home and face the consequences of her moral commitments. She refuses to be silent and informs both her fellow citizens and the rest of the world of the nature of the threat that Narendra Modi's government and affiliated parties (some inspired directly by Nazism) present to the world's most populous country. More than Baldwin's or Arendt's, Roy's case applies to the conditions that Shore, Stanley, and Snyder have found themselves in. Unlike Roy, they have decided to check out of their own communities long before they face actual state violence. Still, Baldwin offers them, and us, wisdom and guidance at this moment. The current condition of oppression in the United States is more generally threatening than at any time in recent years. But it is not totally new, at least not to people of African descent and immigrants to the United States—as the prevalence of Confederate flags among fascist symbols during the 2017 invasion of Charlottesville showed. Black Americans and gay Americans have struggled through most of American history against the conditions that Trump is reviving and spreading. Yet despite the layers of violent oppression Baldwin faced from his home country, he never stopped loving it. Baldwin's commitment to his neighbors, to his country of birth, is something we should never abandon. 'I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually,' Baldwin wrote in Notes of a Native Son. This, I believe, is the difference between a writer who chooses to face down oppressors and one who ignores or betrays the call for solidarity in the face of oppression. Baldwin loved his country—meaning, the people of his country and the potential of a better future for them. Baldwin, Arendt, and Roy offer different models of courage and solidarity. At this moment, Baldwin's unromantic patriotism should move us to support our neighbors.
CNN
29-03-2025
- Politics
- CNN
3 Ivy League scholars plan to leave US and teach in Canada amid Trump administration's higher education battle
Summary Three Yale professors are leaving the prestigious university to teach at the University of Toronto because of the direction of the country under President Trump. Philosophy professor Jason Stanley cited concerns about academic freedom and the Trump administration's battle with higher education institutions. History professors Marci Shore and Timothy Snyder joined Stanley in the move to Canada to advocate for democracy and speak out against fascism. The Trump administration recently paused federal funding to Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania. Critics warn that losing elite educators to other countries could have long-term consequences for American academic leadership. Yale philosophy professor Jason Stanley, who is leaving the prestigious Ivy League university for Toronto as the Trump administration's battle with higher education in the US continues, said mid-phone interview with CNN while walking the campus, 'Hold on one second.' A group of worried students approached the scholar as he walked the grounds of Yale Thursday in New Haven, Connecticut. Was he really leaving?, they wanted to know. 'I love Yale,' Stanley, who has taught at the university for 12 years, reassured the students. 'But Marci, Tim and I, we're gonna go defend democracy somewhere else,' he said, referring to the Yale colleagues joining him in Canada. Stanley set off a firestorm at the highest levels of American academia last Friday, when he decided to leave Yale and the United States largely, he said, because of the direction of the country under the Trump administration. 'Suddenly if you're not a citizen of the United States, you can't comment on politics if you're a professor?' said Stanley, who has written books such as 'How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them' and 'Erasing History: How Fascists Rewrite the Past to Control the Future.' 'That's crazy,' said Stanley, whose academic background is in social and political philosophy and epistemology. 'That's not a free society.' The final straw for Stanley came after Columbia University made sweeping policy changes in an attempt to prevent the Trump administration from pulling hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding from the Ivy League institution. Amid the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration and pro-Palestinian demonstrations on college campuses, Columbia was the first to experience funding cuts as President Donald Trump threatened to halt federal money going to colleges accused of tolerating antisemitism amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas war that started in October 2023. 'It's just humiliating,' Stanley told CNN. 'They're humiliating the universities and I don't see the universities standing up to it.' Now Stanley, along with Yale history professors Marci Shore and her husband Timothy Snyder, are taking their teaching to the University of Toronto to advocate for democracy, speak out against fascism and teach without fear of academic capitulation to the White House, they say. 'The thing about being a historian is that it's not that you know what will happen, but you know what can happen,' Shore, who teaches modern European intellectual history, explained in an interview with CNN. Shore said she and Snyder, who teaches history and global affairs, decided to leave after the 2024 presidential election, and the administration's threats against higher education during President Trump's first 100 days in office reinforced their decision. 'It's not that I think everyone has put their head down and gotten in line,' Shore said. '(But) I think a lot of people have, and I fear that university administrations will, because institutions naturally have an incentive to act in the interest of self-preservation,' she said. While Yale has not directly seen ire from the Trump administration, recent events unfolding between the administration and other Ivy League schools provide cautionary tales. In early March, the Trump administration announced it was pausing $400 million of federal funding to Columbia University, citing the school's failure to 'protect American students and faculty from antisemitic violence and harassment.' Columbia responded by starting to make changes demanded by the administration, such as banning face coverings during protests, boosting disciplinary policies and reviewing curriculums in subject areas like the Middle East. During his second week in office, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at combating antisemitism in schools and on college campuses, and last month announced a multiagency task force would 'root out anti-Semitic harassment' on campuses. Yale and Columbia were among 60 universities that received warnings from the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights earlier this month regarding 'possible consequences' if they fail to take adequate steps to protect Jewish students. The office said it sent letters to universities under investigation for alleged violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act 'relating to antisemitic harassment and discrimination.' Last week, a White House official told CNN the administration paused $175 million in federal funding to the University of Pennsylvania, claiming it has violated an executive order barring transgender women from competing in women's sports. While Penn said as of this week it hadn't received official word of the paused funding, the school maintains it has always been in compliance with federal guidelines. 'There's a tremendous amount of money on the line,' explained Keith Whittington, a Yale professor and cofounder of the Academic Freedom Alliance, which defends the speech of professors and higher education faculty across the country. 'I mean really these are practically existential threats to universities,' he said. But he noted if more elite educators decide to leave for similar reasons as the Yale professors, the universities will be weakened as well. 'I think from an overall American leadership position and sort of scientific research, that's a real threat,' Whittington argued. 'If you lose your best people who decide to go to other countries, that's going to have long-term consequences.' In a statement provided to CNN, a spokesperson for Yale University wrote, 'Yale University has been and continues to be home to world-class faculty members who are dedicated to excellence in scholarship and teaching. These faculty members conduct groundbreaking research, train aspiring leaders who will serve all sectors of society, and offer insights that can help improve the world, and the university is committed to supporting them in these endeavors. 'Yale is proud of its global faculty community which includes faculty who may no longer work at the institution, or whose contributions to academia may continue at a different home institution. Faculty members make decisions about their careers for a variety of reasons and the university respects all such decisions,' the statement continued. 'It's not fear, I'm not afraid,' reiterated Stanley regarding his decision to leave for Canada. Stanley said he'd rather just spend his energy fighting for democracy and against the administration's policies, rather than fighting the universities he loves. 'I'll be in a much better position to fight bullies,' he said. CNN's Karina Tsui, Elizabeth Wolfe, Emma Tucker and Michelle Watson contributed to this report.
