State of the Discussion

There are normal, well-understood ways of dealing with actual threats and forcible obstruction. None of them involve putting a department into academic receivership without a genuine academic reason.

Is Columbia and Trump’s crackdown of the pro-Palestinians the ‘Canary in the coalmine’ (link at bottom, their answer is “yes”) or is it a lot more reasonable?

Why are we asking about canaries when the Trump administration has asserted the right to detain people and ship them to foreign gulags without a trial of any sort?

If they can assert that someone, with no evidence or court proceeding, is not an American citizen and is a gang member, and ship them to an El Salvadorian gulag, then we are actually at fascism, we do not need to argue it is coming. In fact, even if they _aren't_ allowed to do that, even if the court stops them, it is still fascism. It is just a fascist executive that is very slightly constrained by courts.

And I frankly could care less watching Columbia actively destroy itself and every single ounce of respect anyone ever held for it. Because, frankly, it never deserved any of that to start with.

You want to talk about academic freedom, let's talk about it for the colleges that _don't_ instantly and cowardly cave.

If they don't want politics to matter, then they shouldn't be threatening Jews and insisting that everyone's politics need to match theirs or they'll shut down the University.

The word that does the real work is "academically." I don't share what you describe, and I haven't bothered to check, as the political views of members of the Department. Because that's none of my f*****g business or the f*****g business of the federal government. I assume they have deplorable politics. Academic life is full of people who have deplorable politics, of all stripes. To take your own example, Columbia used to have eminent historians who held almost exactly the views you described. But their scholarship was first-rate and their status was never threatened. Probably because the government didn't have a problem with that particular set of views back then. Things got a little dicier when the weird political views of certain scholars pissed the government off. I'm sure I don't have to recite the history of the late 40's through mid 60's.
Whatever the political views of some of the Department members, I have seen nothing from anyone competent to speak -- definitely not including anyone in the Trump administration, Chris Rufo, Barrie Weiss, or, to be blunt, you -- even suggesting that the Department needs an academic overhaul.

I have little respect for "process" arguments because we wouldn't apply them in other situations.

Example: A professor who was openly a white supremist who publicly made an argument for bringing back slavery as a "solution" to various race issues would instantly be fired without the Feds needing to threaten budgets.

We wouldn't have University Presidents claim "it depends" on whether the code of conduct is being broken, nor argue for the first AM and so on. Protesters backing him and his issues would be handled by the police and they wouldn't be allowed to shut down the university much less threaten black students.

All of this would, correctly, be handled by the U calling in the cops if need be to enforce things that are normally illegal.

Is there anyone in the Trump administration who is competent to say, or has any idea, whether there is anything academically wrong with the Department? Disagreements with faculty members' politics don't count.

I think the next question is,

Is Columbia and Trump's crackdown of the pro-Palestinians the ‘Canary in the coalmine' (link at bottom, their answer is "yes") or is it a lot more reasonable?

Some of the claims are concerning; Trump is forcing Columbia's Middle East department to be seriously redone, ergo academic freedom is a problem. However (normally not mentioned) is a prof in this department, one day after 10-7, made posts referring to scenes from the attacks as “awesome” and “stunning” (same link).

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/29/columbia-middle-east-department-trump-edward-said

I read up until the spoiler warning and stopped. I'm definitely in for a good Jason Statham movie. He's got some stuff out on the streaming services that I'd never heard of (The Beekeeper comes to mind--another good Jason Statham movie).

We did rewatch the first John Wick movie last night. I'd forgotten how near-perfect that movie was up to and including the soundtrack (which I purchased while watching the movie).

The behavior of the administration reminds me how we've seen them (not) respond to sex criminals in their staff. Michigan State and that "athletic doctor" for example.

They want to ignore (and/or downgrade) the problem and hope it will go away so they don't have to offend anyone or embarrass the U.

Thinking about this some more.

Back in the late 80s, Mom took us to see an off-Broadway Big River. It was amazing. They blew the roof off of the joint. We bought the Original Broadway Soundtrack and were stunned to discover that the soundtrack, while technically perfect, didn't have anywhere near the oomph that we had just seen. It was like the soundtrack was done at the dress rehearsal instead of in front of a live audience. It was skilled but there was no energy.

And so I wondered "is Big River somewhere?" and there's a youtube of a show in San Jose back in 1999.

This looks like it cost a buck and a half to do. They just set up a camera and zoomed in or panned out as appropriate.

In the current year, you wouldn't even have to zoom in. Just have a fixed 6K camera set up balcony level and zoom in on the footage as appropriate when you're editing it (*MINIMALLY* editing it). Just make sure the sound is synched and you've got yourself a record.

I mean, Big River isn't currently touring anywhere, as far as I can tell (it had a revival in 2004). I'm glad that we've got a copy of San Jose's 1999 Production... they should do that for a lot more stuff. Hooking up the camera, recording the sound, making sure it's synched, and minimal editing time... that can't cost *THAT* much.

From the NYT: The Democrats Are in Denial About 2024

Here's stuff from the middle:

First, they should admit that their party mishandled Mr. Biden’s age. Leading Democrats insisted that he had mental acuity for a second term when most Americans believed otherwise. Party leaders even attempted to shout down anybody who raised concerns, before reversing course and pushing Mr. Biden out of the race. Already, many voters believe that Democrats refuse to admit uncomfortable truths on some subjects, including crime, illegal immigration, inflation and Covid lockdowns. Mr. Biden’s age became a glaring example. Acknowledging as much may be backward looking, but it would send an important signal.

Second, Democrats should recognize that the party moved too far left on social issues after Barack Obama left office in 2017. The old video clips of Ms. Harris that the Trump campaign gleefully replayed last year — on decriminalizing the border and government-funded gender-transition surgery for prisoners — highlighted the problem. Yes, she tried to abandon these stances before the election, but she never spoke forthrightly to voters and acknowledged she had changed her position.

Even today, the party remains too focused on personal identity and on Americans’ differences — by race, gender, sexuality and religion — rather than our shared values. On these issues, progressives sometimes adopt a scolding, censorious posture. It is worth emphasizing that this posture has alienated growing numbers of Asian, Black and Latino voters. Democrats who won last year in places where Mr. Trump also won, such as Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona and Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, adopted a more moderate tone. They were hawkish about border security and law enforcement, criticizing their own party. They did not make the common Democratic mistake of trying to talk about only economic policy and refusing to engage with Americans’ concerns on difficult social issues.

Third, the party has to offer new ideas. When Democrats emerged from the wilderness in the past, they often did so with fresh ideas. They updated the proud Democratic tradition of improving life for all Americans. Bill Clinton remade the party in the early 1990s and spoke of “putting people first.” In 2008, Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton and John Edwards offered exciting plans to improve health care, reduce inequality and slow climate change. These candidates provided intellectual leadership.

The main part that got me was "Already, many voters believe that Democrats refuse to admit uncomfortable truths on some subjects".

Well, sure, if they meant it they would be hammering Trump. If I were a libertarian I'd be absolutely furious with what Trump and Musk are up to. Small government nostrums and Libertarian terms are all over this stuff. If Musk and Trump keep at this the whole dictionary and directory of libertarianism will go from being not taken seriously to being actively despised.

A month after the announcement that the Washington Post opinions page would focus on promoting personal liberty and free markets, it's still hammering Trump every day. I suppose that maybe the change is on hold until a new editor is hired, but so far, it looks like Bezos meant exactly what he said.