Latest news with #KimberlyAtkinsStohr
Boston Globe
21 hours ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
All things considered, NPR should pay its own way
Trump's executive order, titled 'Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media,' began by noting how much has changed since the CPB was established in 1967. 'Today the media landscape is filled with abundant, diverse, and innovative news options,' the order observes. 'Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence.' Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Trump is absolutely right about that . Advertisement The president is also right when he describes NPR and PBS as 'biased' and says they fall short of 'fair, accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan news coverage.' To be sure, conservatives have complained about the leftist slant in public broadcasting for decades. But even NPR Advertisement Yet for all that, public broadcasting's leftward tilt is not a good reason to pull the plug on its government funding, which in fiscal year 2025 will total Certainly people in the news business have strong opinions about the stories and people they cover — it would be strange if they didn't. The ideal of objective, unbiased journalism may be admirable in the abstract. But in the real world, media companies attract employees who tend to share a similar worldview, and that worldview makes its way into their coverage. The Constitution guarantees the right of every media organization — including NPR, PBS, and their local affiliates — to publish or broadcast as they see fit. What it does not guarantee is the right to do so with government dollars. In a democratic society with a cherished tradition of an independent press, the very idea of But that's only one of the objections to using taxpayer funds to sustain public broadcasting. Advertisement Other radio and TV networks, from When President Lyndon Johnson signed the Public Broadcasting Act in 1967, it may have been plausible to argue that public broadcasting provided access to news and educational programming that listeners couldn't get anywhere else. But with the internet revolution, that argument lost all validity. Today, programs of every description are made available via In any case, such subsidies are unaffordable. With the federal budget running a $2 trillion deficit and the Advertisement I oppose any government funding of radio or TV Trump's executive order can't overturn NPR's subsidy, because the funds were appropriated by Congress. But This has nothing to do with NPR's lefty tilt, grating though it can be. Some of my best friends, to coin a phrase, work in public broadcasting, and much of what they produce is first-rate. NPR and its affiliates have broken no end of significant news stories and generated countless hours of intelligent, absorbing, informative content. The same is true of innumerable other media outlets, including the one you're reading now. Those outlets function every day of the year without tapping the federal Treasury. National Public Radio can too. Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
Boston Globe
21 hours ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
I love America. Now it stands to lose a generation of people like me.
The Trump administration's attack on Harvard is a clear warning to all current and future international students in the United States. Cities across the country will lose an annual influx of bright young people, Boston more than many. This is particularly depressing for foreigners who love and admire America. People like me. Advertisement America stands to lose more than tuition at its universities. International students contribute more than $ Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Equally important, America's university system was an ace in the hole in terms of international diplomacy. It could attract the best and the brightest from across the globe and turn them into friends or future citizens. Comparatively few students considered going to China to pursue their dreams. But many will now avoid the uncertainty that now comes with studying in the United States. Advertisement My love for America started early. I went to kindergarten here while my dad attended Duke University on a student visa. I loved the Power Rangers and chasing a ball with a swarm of kids playing soccer. The first book I read aloud was the 1961 American children's classic ' My admiration deepened as an undergraduate at Princeton University. The conservative legal scholar I became a staunch defender of the country. Although I'm aware of its many contradictions, I am quick to mention America's contributions to the world. In the 18th century, the immortal prose of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution heralded the modern rebirth of democratic government around the globe. The next three centuries loosed a torrent of world-changing inventions that drew on research from many countries and became supercharged in the US. All of these come from America. Many come directly from its universities. Advertisement America's genius seems to stem from a culture of trying new things, along with the political and economic institutions that allow them to scale. In Denmark we are slower to celebrate individual achievement. In the emblematic fairy tale, written by the Danish author Hans Christian Andersen in 1843, an I was wrapping up the semester at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government when the news broke. My classmates and I trembled. Would we graduate? We risked losing everything we had worked for. Many prospective international students will now look at America and decide it is not worth the risk. Not when the government could yank their university's ability to host international students on a whim. Not when the government could revoke their visas Scholarship funders will also think twice. A Any university could be next. I remain hopeful that America will return to the veneration for knowledge and democratic institutions for which it has long been admired on the global stage. But today those ideals are tinder for an out-of-control bonfire. The country's ability to attract talent will be diminished for years, if not decades. Advertisement America remains a shining city on a hill. But only because it has set itself on fire.
Boston Globe
21 hours ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
How universities die
The University of Berlin, founded a century earlier, was the Harvard of its day. Every serious American university, from Hopkins to Chicago, to Harvard and Berkeley, was made or reformed according to the 'Berlin model.' Why else is the freedom to learn, across multiple disciplines. Although supported entirely by the state, universities themselves would decide who would teach and what would be taught. If university rankings had existed in 1910, eight of the top 10 in the world probably would have been German — with only Oxford and Cambridge joining them in that elite circle. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up As late as 1932, the University of Berlin remained the most famous of the world's universities. By 1934, it had been destroyed from without and within. Advertisement Germany's descent from a nation of 'poets and thinkers' ('Dichter und Denker') to one of 'judges and hangmen' ('Richter und Henker') ended its leadership in higher education. Advertisement The impact of the new National Socialist regime that came to power in January 1933 became clear on May 10 of that year, when the members of the German Student Union — among them many students from the University of Berlin — piled and burned books from public libraries on the streets of Berlin's Opernplatz, the square opposite the university's main building. A crowd of 70,000, including students, professors, and members of the SA and SS — the storm troopers for the National Socialist Party — watched as thousands of volumes were torched. Students and Nazi Party members at the book burning on the Opernplatz in Berlin, May 10, 1933. German Federal Archives via Wikimedia Commons The Nazi regime quickly purged universities of non-Aryan students and faculty and political dissidents. Leading scholars left Berlin in large numbers in a historic academic migration to the United States, Britain, and elsewhere. Universities lost any capacity for self-government. The University of Berlin abandoned its own traditions of teaching and research. Scholarship serving truth for truth's sake was jettisoned for scholarship in service of the 'Volk.' The Nazi period would be followed by East German Communist orthodoxy and finally, in 1990, by absorption into the German Federal Republic — with each change accompanied by a new purge of faculty. In 2010, at the celebration for the 200th anniversary of the university — now named Humboldt University — its president welcomed guests by saying: 'Today, nobody anywhere in the world is prepared to take this university as a model.' Indeed. No longer the leading university in the world, Humboldt University today is not the best in Germany — and not even the best in Berlin. Advertisement Beijing In the first half of the 20th century, China developed a remarkable set of colleges and universities: a small system, but pound for pound one of the best and most innovative in the world. Its institutions were Chinese and foreign, public and private. The system was composed of leading state universities — Peking University in Beijing and National Central University (modeled on the University of Berlin) in Nanjing. Its private institutions often had international partners. Peking Union Medical College, with Rockefeller Foundation funding, had a global reputation. Tsinghua University in Beijing began in 1911 as a prep school for students planning to enroll at universities in America. By the 1930s, it was China's leading research university, devoted to free and open inquiry. When the Japanese occupied Beijing in 1937, Tsinghua led the effort to relocate leading Chinese universities to China's southwest. Some of Tsinghua's most famous and innovative alumni, such as physicists C.N. Yang (Yang Zhenning) and C.T. Li (Li Zhengdao), who would become Nobel laureates in 1957, completed their studies during this time. Tsinghua's president and the leader of National Southwest University , Mei Yiqi, is still remembered today for his advocacy of liberal education, institutional autonomy, and academic freedom even in the darkest moments of the war. For that he is known as Tsinghua's 'eternal president.' In short, Tsinghua survived eight years of exile and war, and it stood firm by its academic values. What it could not so easily survive was the Communist conquest of China in 1949. Tsinghua's longstanding ties with the United States were severed, not to be joined again for three decades. Chinese universities were reordered along Stalinist lines and were rapidly Sovietized. A new Tsinghua campus arose next to the original one. Its 13-story main building, a brutal Stalinist complex of three structures, now dominated the campus. In 1952 Tsinghua became a polytechnic university to train engineers according to rigid state plans. The schools of sciences and humanities, agriculture, and law were all abolished, and their faculty members were scattered to other institutions. Faculty who would not or could not work under the new regime either fled abroad or were fired at home. Advertisement While Tsinghua began to train China's Communist technocracy, the relentless politicization of universities under Mao Zedong first weakened and then nearly destroyed the university. During the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s, the university became the site of bloody clashes and eventually shut down completely. The Cultural Revolution even destroyed Tsinghua's iconic gate, replaced for a time by a huge statue of Mao. Tsinghua resumed operations, but on a skeletal basis, only in 1978. It would take until the centenary of the university, in 2011, for Tsinghua to reclaim its position as a leading comprehensive research university. A Chinese politician, Wang Guangmei, was publicly humiliated at a denunciation rally at Tsinghua University in 1967. Wikimedia Commons Boston Harvard University began life in 1636 as a public institution. Its founder was not John Harvard but the General Court of Massachusetts. It was supported in the 17th century by taxes and other 'contributions' from as far south as New Haven, at times levied in corn, and by the revenues of the Charlestown ferry that connected Cambridge to Boston, paid in wampumpeag (the currency of the Massachusetts Bay Colony). Founded 140 years before the United States, Harvard was nonetheless central to the creation of our nation. After the battles of Lexington and Concord in April 1775, the Advertisement Harvard and the United States have been closely connected ever since. During World War II, the university once again devoted itself to the war effort. Soldiers were housed on Harvard's campus. Harvard faculty developed advanced torpedoes for submarine warfare and the napalm used in the firebombing of enemy cities, and they assisted in creating the first atom bomb. They also provided intelligence. Numerous Harvard scholars joined the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the precursor to the Central Intelligence Agency. Their collective work at OSS, organized in regional departments, formed the foundation of postwar 'area studies' at Harvard and across the United States, supported by the Department of Defense. In the aftermath of the war, Harvard created a curriculum focused on 'General Education for a Free Society' to give students 'a common understanding of the society which they will possess in common,' a concept that would be adopted nationwide. The Vietnam War led, in contrast, to a Harvard sharply divided over the justness of that cause. But even so, in its wake, Harvard created the Kennedy School of Government to prepare students for careers in public service — a leading center for the study and practice of government. For nearly four centuries, the decisions and actions of Harvard have set the tone for American higher education. Today Harvard has become the leading research university in the world, with a reputation equal to, if not greater than, that of the University of Berlin in the 19th century. As it rose to national prominence in the 20th century, universities across the United States vied to be the 'Harvard of the South' (Duke, Vanderbilt, Rice), the 'Harvard of the Midwest' (Michigan, Northwestern, Chicago, Washington University), and the 'Harvard of the West' (Stanford). Advertisement Yet today Harvard is an institution that may be more admired abroad than at home, in an era of public (and politicized) critique of American higher education. At least 43 US states have cut back on their investments in higher education since 2008, according to research I gathered for my book 'Empires of Ideas.' Leading public and private universities, including Harvard, have become lightning rods in the political and culture wars of the day. Although the Trump administration's multifront assault on Harvard may be less violent (for now, at least) than the authoritarian takeovers of the University of Berlin and Tsinghua University, it is no less dangerous. It is an attempt to destroy the academic freedoms and institutional autonomy that have been hallmarks of every great modern university. Fortunately, the United States is not (yet) Berlin in 1933 or Beijing in 1950. It retains an independent judiciary and rule of law, and it has, in Harvard, a university with the history, will, and resources to resist. In its resistance, Harvard has reaffirmed its leadership in American higher education as nothing else could. Should it fail, we shall witness the destruction of the one industry, higher education, in which this country is still the global leader. We shall destroy our capacity to recruit talent from all shores. We will decline. For history shows that universities can die, and nations will decay. If American universities remain the envy of the world in 2025, the question must be: for how long?
Boston Globe
3 days ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
This is getting out of hand
So while some President Trump-supported reforms, and humility, at the nation's oldest, wealthiest, and most prestigious university might be warranted, the question of 'at what cost' should also be front and center, for conservatives as well as liberals. Advertisement We're not talking here simply about some of the more limited demands from the Trump administration, such as ending diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, hiring additional conservative faculty, or instituting policies to better police antisemitism. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up We're talking about drastic threats to cut off We've reached a point, that is, where the Trump administration's pressure tactics are on the verge of causing long-standing damage to a great American institution, one that produces world-changing science, medicine, and literature, as well as business and political leaders — including conservatives. Advertisement One would hope, then, that some of those Harvard-trained conservatives have begun asking themselves whether all of this has gone too far. And if they are asking themselves that question, is it not time to start conveying their concerns to the White House? None of this would require public admissions of regret or performative social media posts. Indeed, such public actions could provoke a doubling-down from our stubborn president. But there is a MAGA political infrastructure, and it seems as pliable to private lobbying as any White House of the past, and perhaps more so. Maybe this is a step too far for some members of Trump's inner circle, including Steve Bannon ( But what about Ken Griffin, a conservative hedge fund billionaire who has been a sharp critic of Harvard's leftward tilt — but has also given the university Might they play a role in calling a truce to this massively counterproductive war? Advertisement Harvard clearly has a role to play in this. Recent reporting suggests that while the university was making quiet attempts earlier this year to negotiate, those Like any great power conflict, peace talks usually start with secret overtures through intermediaries. If Harvard hasn't reached out to those intermediaries, we hope it does, and soon. To resolve this battle with the least damage to the country, to a higher education system that is the envy of the world, and to Harvard itself, the university will clearly have to make some concessions. That should not be impossible, because not everything Trump is demanding is unreasonable: reining in at least some DEI programs; implementing stronger protections for Jewish students; bringing greater ideological diversity into its faculty. It also seems entirely possible that the university would benefit from weaning itself from some federal dollars. Harvard's only red lines should be its academic freedom and independence — meaning the Trump administration would have to step back from some of its demands, like micromanaging hiring. To those who would dismiss these ideas as liberal pablum, consider this: The Wall Street Journal's Advertisement Even We agree. The president ran on pledges to strengthen America's industrial base and shrink its trade deficit, to control its borders, and to eliminate 'wokeness' from the federal bureaucracy. Permanently wounding one of the world's great universities, one that is also a magnet for international talent and a critical engine for the country's economy, wasn't particularly high on that agenda. It's time to talk about ending this fight and getting on with more pressing issues. Who is willing to be the university's shuttle diplomat? Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Boston Globe
3 days ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Recent bad rap aside, the millionaires tax is making an impact
After reading Carine Hajjar's May 23 opinion piece, Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Just as learning never really ends, public policy can always grow and improve. While Hajjar identifies areas where such policy can be refined, it would be a disservice to overlook the amazing opportunities created by these dollars. Thank you, Massachusetts, for investing in residents like me. My classmates and I promise to make that investment worthwhile. Advertisement Mike McDougal Haverhill Fair Share funds have been a boon to public higher ed In response to Carine Hajjar's opinion piece regarding the Fair Share Amendment, it's important to also highlight the transformative impact this funding is having on public higher education in Massachusetts. The House's fiscal 2025 supplemental budget includes a $20 million investment in higher education, with $10 million allocated to the University of Massachusetts for its endowment matching program. This initiative provides a $1 state match for every $2 in private contributions to the school and has already created or supported 700 scholarship funds worth $135 million, which distribute $4.6 million in student aid annually. Advertisement The Senate's proposal of $125 million in capital support would provide much-needed state funding for deferred maintenance, and it aligns with Governor Maura Healey's visionary BRIGHT Act, which would modernize and improve sustainability on public campuses. A notable Senate earmark is the $10 million designated for a nursing simulation lab at UMass Amherst. This facility would double the enrollment capacity for the Amherst campus's nursing program, helping to address the statewide health care workforce shortage. The UMass system educates 73,000 students annually and is celebrating 19,000 new graduates entering the workforce, predominantly in Massachusetts. These strategic investments fulfill the promises made when voters approved the Fair Share Amendment and ensure a robust future for public higher education and the Commonwealth's economy. Christopher Dunn Associate vice chancellor for government relations UMass Amherst
