Latest news with #UniversityOfMissouri
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Contributor: Trump's war on colleges makes for strange bedfellows on campus
Many top U.S. universities have been torn with strife for the last decade. Dating back to an uproar over a warning to students against donning offensive Halloween costumes at Yale and a conflagration over issues of race at the University of Missouri, both in the fall of 2015, front pages have carried a steady stream of headlines about provocative campus speakers, hateful speech, efforts to foster equality and belonging, viewpoint diversity, racism, antisemitism, the pandemic, the Israel-Hamas war, ousted university presidents, encampments and more. In the last two months, though, some of the academy's warring flanks have suddenly found a common foe. The Trump administration's campaign to defund research, hike endowment taxes, dictate admissions and faculty appointments and otherwise forcibly reshape universities has — for the moment — substantially united fractious faculties, student bodies, donor populations and alumni groups. To successfully repel this onslaught, university communities will have to sustain and build upon this improbable, newfound and fragile unity. Doing so will mean accepting the idea that, to make common cause, one need not hold every cause in common. The schisms tearing at elite universities reflect those forces dividing American society. Immigration, demographic change, new norms in terms of gender and sexuality and other shifts have challenged tradition-bound institutions, most of which were originally founded to serve white, affluent men. As student bodies and faculties gradually diversified over decades, they came to question aspects of how the universities were run, and to point out that vestiges of discrimination and exclusion stubbornly endure. This resulted in a heightened awareness of the role of race — and, to a lesser extent, sex and other aspects of identity — in shaping American society. Efforts to advance updated concepts of equality and equity raised issues in terms of the policing of speech and the ability to express divergent views on hot-button issues. After the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack and the start of the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, fierce conflicts arose over encampments, discriminatory harassment and the bounds of protest rights. Universities have found themselves torn between their responsibilities toward particular groups including Israeli, Palestinian, Jewish, Muslim, Black, Latino and Asian students, conservative and progressive activists and international visa-holders. The result, on campuses including Columbia, Harvard and elsewhere, is a cauldron of impassioned feelings about how the university has let various groups down. During the same period, and probably not coincidentally, public perceptions of higher education have plummeted, with the proportion of Americans expressing confidence in the sector dropping from 57% to 36% between 2015 and 2024, according to Gallup. As these viewpoints ricocheted across campuses, the Trump administration tilted the table. It began by banning diversity, equity and inclusion programs and followed by yanking back overhead contributions in support of scientific research. Then it imposed a set of demands on Columbia University in exchange for continued federal funding. The administration soon hit Harvard far harder, revoking larger sums of money and imposing more intrusive punishments, such as, most recently, attempting to block all international students from attending the university and severing all government ties and funding to the institution. Initially, some university constituencies voiced at least partial support for the administration's approach, arguing that such coercion was necessary to force campuses to face up to antisemitism, dominating ideological orthodoxies and other serious problems cited by the administration as grounds for their actions. Activist investor and alumnus donor Bill Ackman continues to insist that Harvard submit to Trump's demands, which he sees as a rightful antidote to the university's fecklessness. But even for others who might have initially favored government pressure for change, the administration's scorched-campus tactics and the draconian consequences for blameless students, faculty and research initiatives have gone too far. No matter their grievances with the university, most campus constituents are convinced that heavy-handed federal government intervention is no answer. Libertarians and conservatives view the overreach as an improper intrusion into the running of a private institution, worrying also about the precedent it sets. Free speech advocates recoil at the prospect of the government dictating hiring or curriculum decisions. Progressives are convinced that Trump's attack on the university aims to root out racial minorities and reassert white dominance. Many Jews are worried that their legitimate concerns about antisemitism are being self-servingly manipulated by others in ways that will leave them further isolated and vulnerable. Collectively, there is fear that the administration's actions will cast a chill across the entire sector of higher education. Experts have sounded alarms that this battle could permanently destroy the worldwide esteem reserved for America's top universities, destroy the scientific partnerships between gown and government that have been a wellspring of discovery and innovation for more than 80 years, and give succor to American enemies as they watch us destroy our intellectual crown jewels. The notion of a British prime minister putting Oxford or Cambridge into the stocks or a French president defenestrating the Sorbonne or Sciences Po is unimaginable. So too the White House's current tarring and feathering of Harvard. Broad campus constituencies want their universities to withstand federal pressure. They are rallying through organizing efforts like a Harvard alumni collective calling itself 'Crimson Courage' and an outdoor demonstration held at Yale's recent reunion to protest cuts to research. Seeing its academic and athletic competitor in the hot seat, the Yalies chanted: 'Who do we love? Harvard!' — perhaps the first such sentiment in the two schools' 150-year rivalry. To successfully fight back alongside the university, its constituencies will need to rally not just those worried for their alma maters, but also the millions of Americans with a stake in higher education's role in society. An Associated Press poll indicates that 56% of Americans disapprove of Trump's attacks on higher education. By building and activating that majority, university supporters can make Trump's crusade a liability and, if his behavior on other politically costly policies is a guide, possibly press him to dial back or reverse course. To achieve this, business leaders and entrepreneurs will need to insist on the importance of top universities for talent and research. Civil rights leaders should rally behind the universities as pipelines for advancement. Conservatives will need to uplift the university in sustaining vital academic legacies and forms of knowledge. Activists will need to defend the campus as a training ground for citizenship. Each group will need to speak in terms that invite one another in, take account of varied concerns and — at least for now — put the universities' survival first. This does not mean that constituencies need to permanently give up their individual causes, but that they need to join to ensure that the university remains a place vibrant and independent enough to be worth fighting for. As our society has grown more polarized, it has become harder to find common ground across chasms of politics and principle. Motives are distrusted, and the inability to agree on everything can stand in the way of being able to agree on anything. By design, American universities have long been places where people from all backgrounds come together to live and learn, bridging across divides of geography, socioeconomics, race, tradition, lifestyle, religion and belief. The intellectual and professional paths forged and friendships formed over generations at American universities have helped solder together a multitudinous society united by a belief in democracy and country. With the university now under siege, those bonds will be tested. Their ability to hold and strengthen may determine whether the university can survive and thrive, and whether we as a people can as well. Suzanne Nossel is a member of Facebook's Oversight Board and the author of 'Dare to Speak: Defending Free Speech for All.' If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Forbes
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Missouri Passes Bill Ending U. Of Missouri's Exclusive PhD Authority
The Missouri General Assembly has passed a bill reducing the University of Missouri's exclusive ... More authority to grant PhD degrees. The Missouri General Assembly has passed legislation that ends the University of Missouri's exclusive right to grant research doctoral degrees in the state, giving permission to Missouri State University to award PhD degrees in subjects other than engineering. Under current Missouri law, the University of Missouri system with its four campuses in Columbia, St. Louis, Kansas City and Rolla has been recognized as the state's only public research university with the authority to grant PhDs and other postgraduate professional degrees. Earlier in this year's legislative session, Republican Senator Lincoln Hough from Springfield, the home of Missouri State University, had introduced Senate Bill 11, which would have repealed the University of Missouri's status as the sole public university that could grant research doctorates and first-professional degrees in fields like dentistry, law, medicine, optometry, pharmacy, and veterinary medicine. Hough's bill also would have removed the requirement that engineering degrees could be conferred only by the University of Missouri or another public university in collaboration with it. A similar bill was proposed in the Missouri House by Rep. Melanie Stinnett. The legislation that passed this week did not go so far as to repeal these restrictions. Instead, it granted an exception just for Missouri State University to 'have the power and authority to grant doctor of philosophy degrees in disciplines other than engineering and to grant bachelor of science degrees in veterinary technology.' The final vehicle for the legislation — House Bill 419 — was originally introduced by state Rep. Don Mayhew (a Republican from Crocker), as a measure to give military personnel and their families in-state status for the purposes of tuition charges. However, Hough added the MSU provision in the Senate, giving Missouri State University the right to offer PhDs, except in engineering fields. The House passed the Senate substitute for Mayhew's bill, which included other higher education amendments, by a vote of 149-7. It passed in the Senate by a margin of 27-4. It now goes to Governor Mike Kehoe for his consideration. (The same provision was also contained in Senate Bill 160, another higher education bill approved by the General Assembly.) Tension between the University of Missouri, the state's flagship institution, and Missouri State University stretches back for decades and has focused on the educational footprint and identity of MSU. Starting in the 1980s, what was then Southwest Missouri State University began to lobby the legislature for an expanded mission and name change. Those efforts were blocked by MU until 2005, when the Missouri General Assembly passed a bill that changed the name of Southwest Missouri State University to Missouri State University. Governor Matt Blunt, a native of Springfield, signed that bill into law, but it came with strings attached — namely that MSU would not offer doctoral or engineering degrees on its own. Since then, the two institutions have successfully partnered on joint degree programs. In 2006, the Missouri S&T-Missouri State University Cooperative Engineering Program was launched, allowing students in the Springfield area to earn bachelor's degrees initially in civil and electrical engineering, and later in mechanical engineering, from Missouri S&T in Rolla (in full disclosure, I was the president of Missouri State University who signed that agreement). Several years later, MSU teamed up with the University of Missouri at Kansas City to offer UKMC's PharmD program in Springfield. Despite those agreements, MSU and other public universities in the Missouri have sought more autonomy in their ability to offer doctoral degrees. In 2022, Missouri's Coordinating Board of Higher Education approved a new mission for Missouri State University that included conferring professional doctorates. However, the restriction on research doctorates and engineering programs remained in place. Former MSU president Clif Smart, who retired in 2024, argued that Missouri was the only state that limited engineering programs to its flagship university, and that it's also the most restrictive state in terms of giving one public university system a monopoly over research doctorates. As a result, Smart claimed that Missouri students often leave the state to study elsewhere, resulting in an avoidable brain drain and a hardship for area employers seeking to hire and retain workers with graduate credentials. His successor at MSU, President Richard Williams, has continued a similar theme, testifying that Missouri State University needed more flexibility to address regional and statewide workforce needs. 'This is relieving restrictions so we can be nimble,' Williams testified to lawmakers. As in years past, the two universities waged competing lobbying efforts over the latest turf battle. Advocates for ending the degree-granting restrictions claimed it was unfair for the state to grant the MU system full exclusivity over research doctorates degrees and also impose restrictive partnerships on other programs. Defenders of UM System's exclusive doctoral degree authority included the University of Missouri Flagship Council, which argued that the change would stretch the state's resources too thin and would be costly to students who would likely see tuition increases as a result. 'The bottom line is that starting doctoral programs at public universities without research funding will need to be propped up with significant state support,' wrote Chuck Brazeale, chair of the Flagship Council's board of directors. In the end, after conversations with MSU's Williams and MU President Mun Choi, a compromise was reached that did not completely end the University of Missouri's statewide control over doctoral degrees, but carved out a expanded role for Missouri State University instead. "That's how this process is supposed to work,' Senator Hough told the Springfield Daily Citizen. 'Two sides are supposed to get together and work out differences and figure out a compromise. Now, did that bill pass as was filed by myself? No. Did Mizzou get everything that they wanted? No. Did I get everything that I wanted for Missouri State? No. Is it in a better place, and does it offer more educational opportunities in higher ed than previously? Yes. So all in all, I think it's a good step in the right direction.'
