I want to be persuaded by that argument but am struggling as to whether I actually am. Where (I think) we're aligned is that I do not want the government using the heavy hand. I think it is bad for all involved and society more generally.
If the institutions themselves hadn't been so hellbent on thumbing their nose at their benefactors and the wider public it would be a lot easier for me to say it's the students spending the money not the government. However followed to it's logical conclusion we end up in a place where in order to fund education and research the government has no choice but to also put its thumb on the scales for deeply antisocial and illiberal ideologies with no democratic mandate, with the only alternative being to take the tax payer money and go home. That's a terrible place to be and feels to me like a false choice.
Heh, I was at UMD followed later by the 'also ran' state law school when these sorts of debates were in their post PCU, Clintonesque nadir. There were some traces I recognize mostly in retrospect but it was not something that loomed particularly large.
My concern about giving an alternative approach a hoity toity title is that it may well concede premises about legitimacy of the criticisms that I'm not prepared to. Which isn't to say I disagree with your general philosophy.
However if I had to pick at it a little, it would be this question of whether there really is a hard line between private and public, at least to the extent the privates, SLACs, Ivies, whatever, receive public grants and most importantly the backdoor subsidy of federally backed student loans. That doesn't mean the government can just come in and shut things down for no reason other than speech it doesn't like but it does mean that all of the direct and indirect money has always been subject to the democratic process. In terms of what the Trump administration is doing it seems to fall under pulling strings everyone for reasons I will never comprehend forgot were, and always have been, attached.
Yea I would say there is a fundamental failure to understand that the strongest bulwark against the kind of authoritarianism experienced in the 20th century is well functioning liberal institutions.
The essay includes some academic terms and references to people I had to look up but does a good job articulating something that has seemed obvious to me since these debates about academia, "wokeness," etc. emerged. The embrace of these various theories of post truth, and deconstruction, to say nothing of bordering on conspiratorial levels of cynicism about the liberal project or that truth even exists, ultimately result in a kind of unilateral disarmament. After all, if all of the institutions and values underlying small l liberalism, and the basis of Western systems of government, are nothing but shams designed to empower the usual suspects, how do you defend them when a reactionary right says 'yes, we agree, just not about which particular suspects'?
You can't, and nevertheless that's exactly the point the modern university, and academically saturated organs of society like journalism have spent recent years conceding. You don't get the credibility back over night and there's no way to request a redo. All of which to say is that something like this from NYT is probably too little, too late.
I'm visiting my alma mater for the first time in years next month for an event for my older son's baseball team. I am curious to see what it's like. The last time I can clearly recall being on campus was to attend a basketball game around 10 years ago.
I went to the big state flagship which seems like it might be less of a flash point. There was a lot of visible activism when I was there but the place is too big to disrupt like you read about at small schools, the exception being post game rioting.
I agree with you that the results will be bad. What's happening is probably best understood as Extremely Online lashing out.
What I would nevertheless like to see, assuming anyone and anything survives, is a restoration of the idea that these institutions are to be sober and humble stewards of the money and privileges bestowed on them.
I think the unfortunate reality is that they brought this on themselves. Contra what David said above no university, public or private, is entitled to public money. Public universities are creations of the state, private universities are eligible for what they get, including via federally backed loans, by virtue of following (lots and lots of) rules set by the government.
Historically they've gotten that money because of the belief that they are providing a valuable service to the broader citizenry, and the country as a hole. The youthful antics are tolerated to the extent they have to be for institutions to complete their larger mission. But the funding is allocated for the students doing what Jaybird mentioned, i.e. completing their coursework and getting a degree. It isn't to create a forum for the endless accommodation of the most self indulgent types of activism. If that's how it ends up being used, or even just perceived as being used, it's no mystery that eventually someone is going to start yanking it back, including by enforcement of all the rules the schools certify they're following to the letter.
Make no mistake, I think we are all going to lose if that happens in a comprehensive way, but it's a completely predictable consequence.
Similar reaction. My gut has been to say the Republicans have a majority, let them figure it out. At the same time the last thing you want to do is end up empowering Trump. The courts are slow but they aren't giving him carte blanche.
I'm holding out for teleportation technology capable of beaming me from my couch to a barstool at the pub up the street. Or more importantly from the barstool back to my couch.
Dave Mustaine narrowed the responsibilities down to talking to God, going to court when you have to, showing up to work on time, and paying your bills.
I think that's a lot of it. Could we have done this better and greater vision? 100%. But it's hard to imagine a country this big and low density turning out the way a geographically small, high density country does. There's also the decrease in cost of short haul passenger flights over the last decades. Crappy for climate change but sensible enough from a consumer cost and efficiency perspective.
It is mainly about Trump's foreign policy and Ukraine in particular but I think the general sentiments could be applied writ large. He is going to break a bunch of eggs with the implication that he's making an omelet (the best omelet, an omelet,
so good, people tell me there's never been one better, not in the history of our country) except that at the end there won't actually be an omlet, just a mess.
I think you're right that at this current moment there's not much the Democrats can do besides let this play out to some degree. Elections have consequences and they lost. Eventually they then have to come up with a vision about what a better future (or omelet) actually looks like, and sell it with something resembling a authenticity. For the time being it's probably too early for that. Things had to get really messed up during the Bush years before Obama calibrated a compelling counter punch. I expect this will be similar.
Sure, if there is a bill with true bi-partisan backing or in fact would be good for Democrats strategically (i.e. your 80/20 issue) there's no harm in hopping on that train. Go for it. But that's not what the core fights in Congress are going to be over. It's all going to be about whether massive cuts in Medicaid are made as a partial offset for tax cuts weighted towards the wealthiest. That ain't an 80/20 issue and the Republicans need to be left to do that one on their own, if they even can.
I agree. I just also happen to not have an astoundingly convenient amnesia about what the last decade and a half or so of life have been like on this topic.
I'm not sure Jaybird is right about that. Columbia is private but we've had 15-20 odd years of ideological purges, deplatforming incidents, and compelled speech at state schools (which absolutely are the government) and institutions like Columbia that probably wouldn't exist without the benefit of public money.
Assuming this guy didn't actually commit any crimes I think this is a serious escalation but if there's a distinction it's a matter of degree rather than kind. Everyone should think about where it all goes next time they cheer compelled diversity statements or firings over whatever speech not conforming to the latest trends in identity politics. At minimum I would say there is no reason to believe the political left in this country cares about freedom of speech. Which sucks since that was a big reason I signed up back in the day.
If they have grounds under the law so be it but from the reporting so far it is not clear that they do. At minimum they need to convict him first, and (again, based on my limited understanding) convict him of something pretty serious.
One of our immigration lawyers would need to step in but I believe involuntary loss of status requires being convicted of a felony. Saying Hamas is the greatest thing since sliced bread or that the Israelis had it coming or whatever isn't a crime.
Heh I mean this respectfully but I'd say the phrase 'doing a lot of work there' is itself doing a lot of work in your reply. So much I'm not really sure what you're getting at. The fact that the government owns most of the cathedrals (and I believe most of the churches) in France suggests significant influence on the culture, not the opposite.
Which isn't to say I see any reason to believe growing secularism is in any danger of being reversed in France. I don't. I don't think it's going anywhere in America either. However I'm pretty sure you'd strongly disagree with me if I said the historical domination of Protestantism in the US didn't leave any important cultural legacies, including many that remain with us today.
There's still a cultural Catholicism to France that I think is helpful in certain ways. It isn't a mystery why all of the post modern thought that's made American academia and progressivism stupider is a lot less popular in France despite much of it originating there. Catholicism has strong anti-bodies for that kind of stuff. But I agree that any resurgence is unlikely to be specifically Catholic in the way he suggests.
Germany I read a bit more cynically. Obviously 'Never Again' should be part of their national character but there are very real ways in which it's used as a convenient excuse to shirk responsibility and maturing into a constructive world power. The only structural force for actual revanchism is the mainstream parties who have insisted that the only way a normal person with conservative views on immigration can voice those preferences is to consort with the tiny faction that also believes the Third Reich is due for re-appraisal.
It's an interesting thought and if there's an actual partner for it in Paris one would have to be foolish not to take them up on it.
The reason it won't happen is that Douthat is fundamentally right about European populism, absent some pivoting along the lines of what seems to have happened in Italy. The most ironic thing I'd say about today's right wing populism here and there, and very much including MAGA, is that it accepts far too many of the premises of what would otherwise be viewed as progressive victim-ology. It just has a different narrative about who the victims are.
For the West to maintain hegemony or just parity of strength you need a political leadership ready to make a positive case for what we are and what our civilizational goals should be. As best as I can tell you don't see much of that on either side of the Atlantic.
Personally I think we'd all be a lot better off if we collectively decided to lower the importance of this issue to our larger worldview. Or at minimum approach it with an appreciation for the fact that companies producing movies for audiences that don't actually exist is by definition a self correcting problem.
Sure, we would absolutely be better off. But as big of a critic as I am of various cultural silliness in the broader left and lack of establishment accountability which at times fairly but often enough also unfairly gets laid on the Democrats I still see no excuse for this. We're going to learn the hard way that the solution for various problems with the public health authorities is not to put people into healing crystals and essential oils in charge of them. This stuff isn't a joke and change can always be for the worse.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “From The New York Times Editorial Board: The Authoritarian Endgame on Higher Education”
I want to be persuaded by that argument but am struggling as to whether I actually am. Where (I think) we're aligned is that I do not want the government using the heavy hand. I think it is bad for all involved and society more generally.
If the institutions themselves hadn't been so hellbent on thumbing their nose at their benefactors and the wider public it would be a lot easier for me to say it's the students spending the money not the government. However followed to it's logical conclusion we end up in a place where in order to fund education and research the government has no choice but to also put its thumb on the scales for deeply antisocial and illiberal ideologies with no democratic mandate, with the only alternative being to take the tax payer money and go home. That's a terrible place to be and feels to me like a false choice.
"
Heh, I was at UMD followed later by the 'also ran' state law school when these sorts of debates were in their post PCU, Clintonesque nadir. There were some traces I recognize mostly in retrospect but it was not something that loomed particularly large.
My concern about giving an alternative approach a hoity toity title is that it may well concede premises about legitimacy of the criticisms that I'm not prepared to. Which isn't to say I disagree with your general philosophy.
However if I had to pick at it a little, it would be this question of whether there really is a hard line between private and public, at least to the extent the privates, SLACs, Ivies, whatever, receive public grants and most importantly the backdoor subsidy of federally backed student loans. That doesn't mean the government can just come in and shut things down for no reason other than speech it doesn't like but it does mean that all of the direct and indirect money has always been subject to the democratic process. In terms of what the Trump administration is doing it seems to fall under pulling strings everyone for reasons I will never comprehend forgot were, and always have been, attached.
"
Yea I would say there is a fundamental failure to understand that the strongest bulwark against the kind of authoritarianism experienced in the 20th century is well functioning liberal institutions.
"
Yesterday evening I happened to come across this substack post by a former chancellor of UC Berkeley. I know nothing about him but it seems relevant.
https://nilsgilman.substack.com/p/how-did-academia-not-see-it-coming?
The essay includes some academic terms and references to people I had to look up but does a good job articulating something that has seemed obvious to me since these debates about academia, "wokeness," etc. emerged. The embrace of these various theories of post truth, and deconstruction, to say nothing of bordering on conspiratorial levels of cynicism about the liberal project or that truth even exists, ultimately result in a kind of unilateral disarmament. After all, if all of the institutions and values underlying small l liberalism, and the basis of Western systems of government, are nothing but shams designed to empower the usual suspects, how do you defend them when a reactionary right says 'yes, we agree, just not about which particular suspects'?
You can't, and nevertheless that's exactly the point the modern university, and academically saturated organs of society like journalism have spent recent years conceding. You don't get the credibility back over night and there's no way to request a redo. All of which to say is that something like this from NYT is probably too little, too late.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/10/25”
I'm visiting my alma mater for the first time in years next month for an event for my older son's baseball team. I am curious to see what it's like. The last time I can clearly recall being on campus was to attend a basketball game around 10 years ago.
I went to the big state flagship which seems like it might be less of a flash point. There was a lot of visible activism when I was there but the place is too big to disrupt like you read about at small schools, the exception being post game rioting.
"
I agree with you that the results will be bad. What's happening is probably best understood as Extremely Online lashing out.
What I would nevertheless like to see, assuming anyone and anything survives, is a restoration of the idea that these institutions are to be sober and humble stewards of the money and privileges bestowed on them.
"
I think the unfortunate reality is that they brought this on themselves. Contra what David said above no university, public or private, is entitled to public money. Public universities are creations of the state, private universities are eligible for what they get, including via federally backed loans, by virtue of following (lots and lots of) rules set by the government.
Historically they've gotten that money because of the belief that they are providing a valuable service to the broader citizenry, and the country as a hole. The youthful antics are tolerated to the extent they have to be for institutions to complete their larger mission. But the funding is allocated for the students doing what Jaybird mentioned, i.e. completing their coursework and getting a degree. It isn't to create a forum for the endless accommodation of the most self indulgent types of activism. If that's how it ends up being used, or even just perceived as being used, it's no mystery that eventually someone is going to start yanking it back, including by enforcement of all the rules the schools certify they're following to the letter.
Make no mistake, I think we are all going to lose if that happens in a comprehensive way, but it's a completely predictable consequence.
"
Similar reaction. My gut has been to say the Republicans have a majority, let them figure it out. At the same time the last thing you want to do is end up empowering Trump. The courts are slow but they aren't giving him carte blanche.
On “Of Amtrak, AI, and Arguing About Trains on the Interwebs”
I'm holding out for teleportation technology capable of beaming me from my couch to a barstool at the pub up the street. Or more importantly from the barstool back to my couch.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/10/25”
Dave Mustaine narrowed the responsibilities down to talking to God, going to court when you have to, showing up to work on time, and paying your bills.
On “Of Amtrak, AI, and Arguing About Trains on the Interwebs”
I think that's a lot of it. Could we have done this better and greater vision? 100%. But it's hard to imagine a country this big and low density turning out the way a geographically small, high density country does. There's also the decrease in cost of short haul passenger flights over the last decades. Crappy for climate change but sensible enough from a consumer cost and efficiency perspective.
On “So Let’s Put Together a Democratic Party Ad Campaign”
There was an article a few weeks ago by Kevin Williamson called 'Where's the Omelet?'
https://thedispatch.com/article/trump-putin-ukraine-war/
It is mainly about Trump's foreign policy and Ukraine in particular but I think the general sentiments could be applied writ large. He is going to break a bunch of eggs with the implication that he's making an omelet (the best omelet, an omelet,
so good, people tell me there's never been one better, not in the history of our country) except that at the end there won't actually be an omlet, just a mess.
I think you're right that at this current moment there's not much the Democrats can do besides let this play out to some degree. Elections have consequences and they lost. Eventually they then have to come up with a vision about what a better future (or omelet) actually looks like, and sell it with something resembling a authenticity. For the time being it's probably too early for that. Things had to get really messed up during the Bush years before Obama calibrated a compelling counter punch. I expect this will be similar.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/10/25”
Sure, if there is a bill with true bi-partisan backing or in fact would be good for Democrats strategically (i.e. your 80/20 issue) there's no harm in hopping on that train. Go for it. But that's not what the core fights in Congress are going to be over. It's all going to be about whether massive cuts in Medicaid are made as a partial offset for tax cuts weighted towards the wealthiest. That ain't an 80/20 issue and the Republicans need to be left to do that one on their own, if they even can.
"
I don't know why they'd give on anything without something in return. Let the Republicans own all of this.
"
I agree. I just also happen to not have an astoundingly convenient amnesia about what the last decade and a half or so of life have been like on this topic.
"
My bad!
"
I'm not sure Jaybird is right about that. Columbia is private but we've had 15-20 odd years of ideological purges, deplatforming incidents, and compelled speech at state schools (which absolutely are the government) and institutions like Columbia that probably wouldn't exist without the benefit of public money.
Assuming this guy didn't actually commit any crimes I think this is a serious escalation but if there's a distinction it's a matter of degree rather than kind. Everyone should think about where it all goes next time they cheer compelled diversity statements or firings over whatever speech not conforming to the latest trends in identity politics. At minimum I would say there is no reason to believe the political left in this country cares about freedom of speech. Which sucks since that was a big reason I signed up back in the day.
"
If they have grounds under the law so be it but from the reporting so far it is not clear that they do. At minimum they need to convict him first, and (again, based on my limited understanding) convict him of something pretty serious.
"
One of our immigration lawyers would need to step in but I believe involuntary loss of status requires being convicted of a felony. Saying Hamas is the greatest thing since sliced bread or that the Israelis had it coming or whatever isn't a crime.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/3/2025”
Heh I mean this respectfully but I'd say the phrase 'doing a lot of work there' is itself doing a lot of work in your reply. So much I'm not really sure what you're getting at. The fact that the government owns most of the cathedrals (and I believe most of the churches) in France suggests significant influence on the culture, not the opposite.
Which isn't to say I see any reason to believe growing secularism is in any danger of being reversed in France. I don't. I don't think it's going anywhere in America either. However I'm pretty sure you'd strongly disagree with me if I said the historical domination of Protestantism in the US didn't leave any important cultural legacies, including many that remain with us today.
"
There's still a cultural Catholicism to France that I think is helpful in certain ways. It isn't a mystery why all of the post modern thought that's made American academia and progressivism stupider is a lot less popular in France despite much of it originating there. Catholicism has strong anti-bodies for that kind of stuff. But I agree that any resurgence is unlikely to be specifically Catholic in the way he suggests.
Germany I read a bit more cynically. Obviously 'Never Again' should be part of their national character but there are very real ways in which it's used as a convenient excuse to shirk responsibility and maturing into a constructive world power. The only structural force for actual revanchism is the mainstream parties who have insisted that the only way a normal person with conservative views on immigration can voice those preferences is to consort with the tiny faction that also believes the Third Reich is due for re-appraisal.
"
It's an interesting thought and if there's an actual partner for it in Paris one would have to be foolish not to take them up on it.
The reason it won't happen is that Douthat is fundamentally right about European populism, absent some pivoting along the lines of what seems to have happened in Italy. The most ironic thing I'd say about today's right wing populism here and there, and very much including MAGA, is that it accepts far too many of the premises of what would otherwise be viewed as progressive victim-ology. It just has a different narrative about who the victims are.
For the West to maintain hegemony or just parity of strength you need a political leadership ready to make a positive case for what we are and what our civilizational goals should be. As best as I can tell you don't see much of that on either side of the Atlantic.
"
Personally I think we'd all be a lot better off if we collectively decided to lower the importance of this issue to our larger worldview. Or at minimum approach it with an appreciation for the fact that companies producing movies for audiences that don't actually exist is by definition a self correcting problem.
"
I think the main reason not to see it is the last really good movie they made was probably Coco. All the live action ones have sucked.
"
Sure, we would absolutely be better off. But as big of a critic as I am of various cultural silliness in the broader left and lack of establishment accountability which at times fairly but often enough also unfairly gets laid on the Democrats I still see no excuse for this. We're going to learn the hard way that the solution for various problems with the public health authorities is not to put people into healing crystals and essential oils in charge of them. This stuff isn't a joke and change can always be for the worse.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.