Latest news with #academicfreedom
Yahoo
16 hours 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.
National Post
17 hours ago
- General
- National Post
Letters: Trudeau sneaks around at the throne speech
Article content Few, if any, of those students would question what they were being told by professors and the administration. Their main concern would be graduating and then starting to teach. If they had to endure lectures on decolonization and other controversial issues, they would go along with whatever was required. Article content It takes an older student, and one with real-world experience, to challenge the doctrines being presented in today's universities. Without students like Margaret Munn at Western and Lindsay Shepherd — who became embroiled in a highly publicized academic freedom controversy at Wilfrid Laurier University in 2017, and who was vindicated by an investigation and received an apology — the public would be unaware of how their taxpayer dollars are being used in post-secondary education. Article content Students are not going to rock the boat and demand change. Change will have to come from reductions in government funding going to institutions that are straying from their intended purpose. Article content We live in an 'entitled' world where the losing team seeks to off-load blame onto others. It's never about their own failures but something wrong with the rules, the judging, or the system itself. It now looks like that entitlement mentality, so prevalent among our youth, has crept into the halls of Parliament. Article content The Canadian public spoke loudly in last month's election, reducing the NDP to seven seats and sacking their leader, thereby withdrawing 'official party status' and all the perks that accrue. Surely it doesn't take a Nobel Prize winner to figure out how this happened. Propping up the minority Liberal government through the infamous 'Supply and Confidence Agreement' made the NDP indistinguishable from their already left-trending comrades in Parliament. Furthermore, with high-profile anti-Israel supporters among the membership, loyal NDPers were forced to question the party's moral principles. Article content Article content For interim leader Don Davies to argue that his party is a 'national' party is a bit rich. It has no federal representation east of Manitoba, save for one seat in Quebec. Instead of looking for special treatment from their former partners, in order to avoid the rules that govern 'official party status,' Davies and his party need to look inward and decide how they can become a legitimate, respectable choice for Canadians seeking a leftist alternative to the Liberal party. Article content Article content It is astounding how easily the Canadian electorate can be manipulated. Liberal strategists must be both cynical and self-satisfied to have developed and successfully promoted a false narrative to the public during the election campaign — that we were, in the words of Mark Carney, 'facing the most significant crisis of our lifetimes' due to Donald Trump's tariffs and threats. While many Canadians did not fall for this narrative, I wonder if those who did now feel duped.
Japan Times
2 days ago
- General
- Japan Times
SDF ramps up campus outreach amid recruitment slump
With Japan's Self-Defense Forces facing a growing shortage of new recruits, their provincial cooperation offices — responsible for public relations and recruitment — are stepping up efforts to engage students by setting up publicity booths at university festivals. Officials say the initiative is an effective way to foster a stronger connection between the public and the SDF. So far, many universities have responded positively to the outreach. Some experts argue, however, that "on-campus agreement" is needed to ensure that academic freedom is respected. Provincial cooperation offices have set up publicity booths at university festivals for years, but the overall picture of their activities has often been unclear because of limited public promotion. In a notable move, the Aichi Provincial Cooperation Office, based in Nagoya, Aichi Prefecture, took the unprecedented step of publishing its booth exhibition schedule for October-November last year on its website. Following the move, the office set up booths at 21 campuses across 17 private universities in the central prefecture over the two-month period. Officials noted that similar efforts have been made at other times as well, suggesting that the publicity initiative is now well established. Lt. Col. Eishiro Ishii, head of the office's recruitment section, said the office is "actively doing" the schedule disclosure, while noting that there has been no significant opposition from inside or outside the universities. A typical SDF publicity booth, set up under a tent, features pamphlets introducing the roles and responsibilities of SDF personnel, along with displays of reconnaissance motorcycles and high-mobility transportation vehicles. Some booths also incorporate virtual reality technology, offering computer-generated experiences such as riding in a tank or performing a parachute descent. One university official said, "This is one of the attractions that add excitement to the school festival." A student serving on the festival committee at another university responded positively, saying, "The committee invited (the SDF booth) as one of the sponsoring organizations." At yet another university, an official welcomed the display of SDF vehicles, noting, "Children from the local community were happy to see them." According to Defense Ministry data, the Ground, Maritime and Air SDF invited applications for 19,598 positions in fiscal 2023, but only 9,959 were filled. This reduced the recruitment achievement rate to a record low of 51%, highlighting a severe shortage of qualified personnel — a situation attributed primarily to Japan's declining births. "I feel that (public) perceptions of the SDF have improved," Ishii said. Even so, he emphasized the need to further strengthen outreach efforts. "The public still tends to have a vague image of the SDF as a physically demanding workplace. In reality, the SDF offers a wide range of career options, but these are not widely known," he added. Some experts have raised concerns about universities cooperating with the SDF, citing the importance of safeguarding academic freedom as guaranteed under Article 23 of the Constitution. Their concerns stem from Japan's pre-World War II history, when state power infringed upon independent academic research. In October 2023, the ASDF's Western Air Defense Force Band performed at Tokushima University's school festival, held on the Josanjima campus in the southwestern city of Tokushima. On learning of the planned performance in advance, the university's faculty labor union submitted a letter of inquiry, arguing that the ASDF concert was "out of line with the original purpose (of the school festival)." In response, the university explained that the event was a one-off. The SDF did not participate in the following year's festival. Shun Ishihara, a professor of sociology and social work at Meiji Gakuin University in Tokyo, expressed caution about uncritical collaboration between academia and state institutions. "Universities need to maintain a clear boundary between themselves and powerful state entities such as the SDF," he said. Still, Ishihara also suggested that cooperation is not inherently problematic. "It should not be ruled out if there is a clear agreement within the university," he said. In the case of Tokushima University, "the issue was that no such agreement was in place," he noted.
Russia Today
2 days ago
- Business
- Russia Today
Elite Western universities form a corrupt and parasitic empire
US President Donald Trump has banned international students from attending Harvard University, citing national security concerns. The move has sparked widespread condemnation from academics and foreign governments, who warn it could damage America's global influence and reputation for academic openness. At stake is not just Harvard's global appeal, but the very premise of open academic exchange that has long defined elite higher education in the US. But exactly how 'open' is Harvard's admissions process? Every year, highly qualified students – many with top-tier SAT or GMAT test scores – are rejected, often with little explanation. Critics argue that behind the prestigious Ivy League brand lies an opaque system shaped by legacy preferences, DEI imperatives, geopolitical interests, and outright bribes. George Soros, for instance, once pledged $1 billion to open up elite university admissions to drones who would read from his Open Society script. China's swift condemnation of Trump's policy added a layer of geopolitical irony to the debate. Why would Beijing feign concern for 'America's international standing' amid a bitter trade war? The international standing of US universities has long been tarnished by a woke psychosis which spread like cancer to all branches of the government. So, what was behind China's latest gripe? The answer may lie in the unspoken rules of soft power: Ivy League campuses are battlegrounds for influence. The US deep state has long recruited foreign students to promote its interests abroad – subsidized by American taxpayers no less. China is apparently playing the same game, leveraging elite US universities to co-opt future leaders on its side of the geostrategic fence. For the time being, a judge has granted Harvard's request for a temporary restraining order against Trump's proposed ban. Come what may, there is one commonsense solution that all parties to this saga would like to avoid: Forcing Ivy League institutions to open their admissions process to public scrutiny. The same institutions that champion open borders, open societies, and open everything will, however, not tolerate any suggestion of greater openness to its admissions process. That would open up a Pandora's Box of global corruption that is systemically ruining nations today. Speaking of corruption – how is this for irony? A star Harvard professor who built her career researching decision-making and dishonesty was just fired and stripped of tenure for fabricating her own data! The Ivy League has a vested interest in perpetuating rising wealth and educational inequalities. It is the only way they can remain atop the global rankings list at the expense of less-endowed peers. Elite universities like Harvard, Stanford, and MIT dominate lists of institutions with the most ultra-wealthy alumni (net worth over $30mn). For example, Harvard alone has 18,000 ultra-high-net-worth (UHNW) alumni, representing 4% of the global UHNW population. These alumni networks provide major donations, corporate partnerships, and exclusive opportunities, reinforcing institutional wealth. If the alma mater's admissions process was rigged in their favor, they have no choice but to cough it up, at least for the sake of their offspring who will perpetuate this exclusivist cycle. The total endowment of Princeton University – $34.1 billion in 2024 – translated to $3.71 million per student, enabling generous financial aid and state-of-the-art facilities. Less prestigious institutions just cannot compete on this university rankings (QS, THE, etc.) heavily favor institutions with large endowments, high spending per student, and wealthy student bodies. For example, 70% of the top 50 US News & World Report Best Colleges overlap with universities boasting the largest endowments and the highest percentage of students from the top 1% of wealthy families. According to the Social Mobility Index (SMI), climbing rankings requires tens of millions in annual spending, driving tuition hikes and exacerbating inequality. Lower-ranked schools which prioritize affordability and access are often overshadowed in traditional rankings, which reward wealth over social impact. Besides, social mobility these days is predetermined at birth, as the global wealth divide becomes unbridgeable. Worse, the global ranking system itself thrives on graft, with institutions gaming audits, inflating data, and even bribing reviewers. Take the case of a Southeast Asian diploma mill where some of its initial batch of female students had been arrested for prostitution. Despite its flagrant lack of academic integrity, it grew rapidly to secure an unusually high QS global ranking – ahead of venerable institutions like the University of Pavia, where Leonardo da Vinci studied, and which boasts three Nobel Laureates among its ranks. Does this grotesque inversion of merit make any sense? Government policies increasingly favor elite institutions. Recent White House tax cuts and deregulation may further widen gaps by benefiting corporate-aligned universities while reducing public funding for others. This move was generally welcomed by the Ivy League until Trump took on Harvard. With such ominous trends on the horizon, brace yourselves for an implosion of the global education sector by 2030 – a reckoning mirroring the 2008 financial crisis, but with far graver consequences. And touching on the 2008 crisis, didn't someone remark that 'behind every financial disaster, there's a Harvard economist?' Nobody seems to be learning from previous contretemps. In fact, I dare say that 'learning' is merely a coincidental output of the Ivy League brand When Lehman Brothers and its lesser peers collapsed in 2008, many Singapore-based corporations eagerly scooped up their laid-off executives. The logic? Fail upward. If these whizz kids were truly talented, why did they miss the glaring warning signs during the lead up to the greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression? The answer lies in the cult of credentialism and an entrenched patronage system. Ivy League MBAs and Rolodexes of central banker contacts are all that matters. The consequences are simply disastrous: A runaway global talent shortage will hit $8.452 trillion in unrealized annual revenues by 2030, more than the projected GDP of India for the same year. Ivy League MBAs often justify their relevance by overcomplicating simple objectives into tedious bureaucratic grinds – all in the name of efficiency, smart systems, and ever-evolving 'best practices'. The result? Doctors now spend more time on paperwork than treating patients, while teachers are buried under layers of administrative work. Ultimately, Ivy League technocrats often function as a vast bureaucratic parasite, siphoning public and private wealth into elite hands. What kind of universal socioeconomic model are these institutions bequeathing to the world? I can only think of one historical analogue as a future cue: Colonial India, aka the British Raj. This may be a stretch, but bear with me. Lessons from the Raj As Norman Davies pointed out, the Austro-Hungarians had more bureaucrats managing Prague than the British needed to run all of colonial India – a subcontinent that included modern-day Pakistan and Bangladesh. In fact, it took only 1,500-odd white Indian Civil Service (ICS) officials to govern colonial India until WWI. That is quite staggering to comprehend, unless one grasps how the British and Indian societies are organized along rigid class (and caste) lines. When two corrupt feudal systems mate, their offspring becomes a blueprint for dystopia. India never recovered from this neo-feudal arrangement. If the reader thinks I am exaggerating, let's compare the conditions in the British Raj and China from 1850 to 1976 (when the Cultural Revolution officially ended). During this period, China endured numerous societal setbacks – including rebellions, famines, epidemics, lawlessness, and a world war – which collectively resulted in the deaths of nearly 150 million Chinese. The Taiping Rebellion alone – the most destructive civil war in history – resulted in 20 to 30 million dead, representing 5-10% of China's population at the time. A broad comparison with India during the same period reveals a death toll of 50-70 million, mainly from epidemics and famines. Furthermore, unlike colonial India, many parts of China also lacked central governance. Indian nationalists are quick to blame a variety of bogeymen for their society's lingering failings. Nevertheless, they should ask themselves why US Big Tech-owned news platforms, led by upper-caste Hindu CEOs, no less, showed a decidedly pro-Islamabad bias during the recent Indo-Pakistani military standoff. Maybe, these CEOs are supine apparatchiks, much like their predecessors during the British Raj? Have they been good stewards of the public domain (i.e. internet)? Have they promoted meritocracy in foreign lands? (You can read some stark examples here, here and here). These Indian Big Tech bros, however, showed a lot of vigor and initiative during the Covid-19 pandemic, forcing their employees to take the vaccine or face the pink slip. They led the charge behind the Global Task Force on Pandemic Response, which included an 'unprecedented corporate sector initiative to help India successfully fight COVID-19.' Just check out the credentials of the 'experts' involved here. Shouldn't this task be left to accomplished Indian virologists and medical experts? A tiny few, in the service of a hegemon, can control the fate of billions. India's income inequality is now worse than it was under British rule. As global university inequalities widen further, it is perhaps time to rethink novel approaches to level the education field as many brick and mortar institutions may simply fold during the volatile 2025-30 period. I am optimistic that the use of AI in education will be a great equalizer, but I also fear that Big Tech will force governments into using its proprietary EdTech solutions that are already showing signs of runaway AI hallucinations – simply because the bold new world is all about control and power, not empowerment. Much like the British Raj, I would say.
Arab News
3 days ago
- Business
- Arab News
Global universities seek to lure US-bound students amid Trump crackdown
TOKYO/BEIJING/LONDON: Universities around the world are seeking to offer refuge for students impacted by US President Donald Trump's crackdown on academic institutions, targeting top talent and a slice of the billions of dollars in academic revenue in the United States. Osaka University, one of the top ranked in Japan, is offering tuition fee waivers, research grants and help with travel arrangements for students and researchers at US institutions who want to transfer. Japan's Kyoto University and Tokyo University are also considering similar schemes, while Hong Kong has instructed its universities to attract top talent from the United States. China's Xi'an Jiaotong University has appealed for students at Harvard, singled out in Trump's crackdown, promising 'streamlined' admissions and 'comprehensive' support. Trump's administration has enacted massive funding cuts for academic research, curbed visas for foreign students — especially those from China — and plans to hike taxes on elite schools. Trump alleges top US universities are cradles of anti-American movements. In a dramatic escalation, his administration last week revoked Harvard's ability to enrol foreign students, a move later blocked by a federal judge. Masaru Ishii, dean of the graduate school of medicine at Osaka University, described the impact on US universities as 'a loss for all of humanity.' Japan aims to ramp up its number of foreign students to 400,000 over the next decade, from around 337,000 currently. Jessica Turner, CEO of Quacquarelli Symonds, a London-based analytics firm that ranks universities globally, said other leading universities around the world were trying to attract students unsure of going to the United States. Germany, France and Ireland are emerging as particularly attractive alternatives in Europe, she said, while in the Asia-Pacific, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, and mainland China are rising in profile. SWITCHING SCHOOLS Chinese students have been particularly targeted in Trump's crackdown, with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Wednesday pledging to 'aggressively' crack down on their visas. More than 275,000 Chinese students are enrolled in hundreds of US colleges, providing a major source of revenue for the schools and a crucial pipeline of talent for US technology companies. International students — 54 percent of them from India and China — contributed more than $50 billion to the US economy in 2023, according to the US Department of Commerce. Trump's crackdown comes at a critical period in the international student application process, as many young people prepare to travel to the US in August to find accommodation and settle in before term starts. Dai, 25, a Chinese student based in Chengdu, had planned to head to the US to complete her master's but is now seriously considering taking up an offer in Britain instead. 'The various policies (by the US government) were a slap in my face,' she said, requesting to be identified only by her surname for privacy reasons. 'I'm thinking about my mental health and it's possible that I indeed change schools.' Students from Britain and the European Union are also now more hesitant to apply to US universities, said Tom Moon, deputy head of consultancy at Oxbridge Applications, which helps students in their university applications. He said many international students currently enrolled at US universities were now contacting the consultancy to discuss transfer options to Canada, the UK and Europe. According to a survey the consultancy ran earlier this week, 54 percent of its clients said they were now 'less likely' to enrol at an American university than they were at the start of the year. There has been an uptick in applications to British universities from prospective students in the US, said Universities UK, an organization that promotes British institutions. It cautioned, however, that it was too early to say whether that translates into more students enrolling. REPUTATIONAL EFFECTS Ella Ricketts, an 18-year-old first year student at Harvard from Canada, said she receives a generous aid package paid for by the school's donors and is concerned that she won't be able to afford other options if forced to transfer. 'Around the time I was applying to schools, the only university across the Atlantic I considered was Oxford... However, I realized that I would not be able to afford the international tuition and there was no sufficient scholarship or financial aid available,' she said. If Harvard's ability to enrol foreign students is revoked, she would most likely apply to the University of Toronto, she said. Analytics firm QS said overall visits to its 'Study in America' online guide have declined by 17.6 percent in the last year — with interest from India alone down over 50 percent. 'Measurable impacts on enrolment typically emerge within six to 18 months. Reputational effects, however, often linger far longer, particularly where visa uncertainty and shifting work rights play into perceptions of risk versus return,' said QS' Turner. That reputational risk, and the ensuing brain drain, could be even more damaging for US institutions than the immediate economic hit from students leaving. 'If America turns these brilliant and talented students away, they will find other places to work and study,' said Caleb Thompson, a 20-year-old US student at Harvard, who lives with eight international scholars.
