Trump is targeting US universities as never before. Here are four ways to help them

Universities in the US are under attack. While the Trump administration pretends to punish them for their alleged compliance with or support for “antisemitism” (ie pro-Gaza demonstrations) and “anti-white racism” (ie diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives), the real targets are academic freedom and freedom of speech. Going after the most prominent and privileged universities, such as Columbia and Harvard, kills two birds with one stone: it garners prime media attention and spreads fear among other, far less privileged universities.

The rest of the world has taken note and has started to respond, though mostly without knowing much about the specifics of US academia and without asking US-based academics what they need. Obviously, different academics face different challenges – depending on, for example, their gender and race, legal status, the state they live in and the university they work at – but here are some suggestions from a white, male, tenured green-card holder working at a public university in a GOP-controlled state.

It is important to understand exactly how the Trump administration is attacking universities. Unlike in countries such as China or Turkey, academics are (so far) not imprisoned, while most universities or their leaderships have not been taken over by the state, as they have been in countries such as Hungary and Turkey. However, public universities are often overseen by heavily politicised boards and there are some individual cases of university takeovers – most notably, the New College of Florida. Rather, the attack is financial, but with clear political motivations.

Universities that support – or even tolerate – protests, research or speech that go against the preferences of the Trump administration are investigated and their federal funding is frozen or cut. While DEI initiatives and research on climate breakdown or gender and sexuality are not technically banned, they can lead to heavy financial repercussions for the universities that engage in or tolerate them. And in neoliberal academia, money talks. University administrators are beholden to university boards mostly made up of businesspeople, who value financial growth over academic freedom. It was therefore disappointing, if unsurprising, that the presidents of Columbia and Harvard yielded to Trump’s demands, even if that did save neither them nor their university.

Given that the main threat is financial, and the US spends almost twice as much on research and development as the EU, it is clear that other countries can only do so much. Moreover, given that the Trump administration is largely uninterested in dissenting opinions, let alone those from abroad, and the US is too powerful to coerce politically, we should be realistic about what Europeans can do. But even if they cannot stop the attacks on US academia, different groups can help US-based academics in other ways. I will focus on four groups: academics, journalists, universities and governments.

Boycotts and petitions are the favourite forms of political protest of academics. On social media, many European academics have already declared that they will no longer travel to the US, for work or leisure, at least while Trump is in power. While these boycotts make sense as a form of self-protection, given the string of recent detentions and deportations, they will do little to support US-based academics. They could instead lend their support by offering to host targeted data and research on open websites in Europe.

European journalists have covered the attacks on Columbia and Harvard with as much fervour as they did with the alleged “wokeness” of universities. Covering the attacks on US academia is important, particularly if it moves beyond the Ivy League in the north-east and includes public universities in states such as Florida and Texas. However, this will not sway the Trump administration. What journalists can do, however, is be more sensitive to the situation of US-based academics and administrators when they approach them for interviews.

I understand that the plight of my colleagues and me makes an interesting story for you, but it can also create more problems for us. Given that at many public universities communication through official email accounts (and sometimes even through university computers) is subject to “open records” legislation, anything your interviewees write could be made public and used politically and professionally. Hence, at the very least, ask whether your interviewees want to communicate through their official work email or through a private one. And be aware of the potential risks your story might have for that academic – is that “provocative question” really worth the risk for your interviewee?

Recently, several European universities, such as Aix-Marseille University in France and Free University Brussels, have set up initiatives to provide a haven to “the biggest victims of this political and ideological interference”. But three-year programmes and one-year postdocs are neither attractive nor structural solutions, particularly if they are meant to attract “outstanding scholars”. In fact, they can seem more driven by self-interest (good PR). If universities want to make a difference, for at least some individual academics, ensure that they can continue their thriving career at your institution. And focus your support primarily on scholars who are individually targeted and who, just like many “top” scholars, are working at public universities rather than Ivy Leagues.

Several European countries have also started to discuss plans to bring leading international scientists to Europe. Few have been so blunt as the minister of education, culture and science in the Netherlands, Eppo Bruins, who defended his initiative in classic Dutch mercantile language: “Top scientists are worth their weight in gold for our country and for Europe.” Support for US-based academics should also benefit the supporting countries and institutions, but it should not be at the expense of Dutch and European academics. The Dutch government announced this initiative just days after academics from universities around the country had been striking in protest against the draconic cuts on higher education by that same government.

The EU has a phenomenal opportunity to attract some of the best researchers in the world from the US, but these initiatives must be integrated into a much broader strategy for, and investment in, European academia. It might only benefit some individual, high-profile researchers at first, but there will be an economic effect. That might force even the Trump administration to change course.