Category: culture wars

  • The implications for UK universities of Trump’s attacks on EDI

    The implications for UK universities of Trump’s attacks on EDI

    Few will be unaware of Donald Trump’s antipathy towards diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the US. In February 2025, Trump issued executive orders and policy directives aimed at eliminating DEI programmes and removing references to “gender ideology” from federal agencies.

    For those of us who know DEI as equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI), there is concern about the ripple effects of Trump’s measures on UK universities, for research as well as teaching and learning.

    One of the immediate impacts of this manoeuvre was to remove essential LGBTQ+ content from federal websites. Terms such as “transgender”, “LGBT”, and “pregnant person” were all banned. Decades of HIV data, contraception guidelines, and research on racial health disparities were suddenly inaccessible. For US researchers in higher education, such staggeringly blatant anti-EDI policies have disrupted the passage of critical research focused on improving health outcomes for marginalised groups.

    Such censorship – to our minds at least – thoroughly undermines scientific integrity, limiting the study of complex health and social issues. Our colleagues in the US are now forced to work within these constraints, which threaten accuracy and inclusivity. Indeed, the politicisation of scientific terminology arguably damages public trust in research and, in the US, diminishes the credibility of federal agencies.

    Implications for LGBTQ+ researchers

    Trump’s anti-EDI stance is a menace to any form of university research seeking to address inequalities and build inclusion for seldom heard population groups, and the effects of these decisions will have wide-reaching and intersectional repercussions.

    As committee members of a university’s LGBTQ+ staff network, our focus is understandably on the impact for our colleagues working on LGBTQ+ issues. US-based researchers working on LGBTQ+ themes now face obstacles in securing funding and publishing their work. And this has a knock-on effect on wider LGBTQ+ population groups. The suppression of critical health information and the suspension of targeted research leaves LGBTQ+ communities bereft of vital support and resources.

    More fundamentally, Trump’s policies send the signal that LGBTQ+ identities and needs are irrelevant from his agenda for US growth. It’s a quick step from this to the increase of social stigma and discrimination targeted at LGBTQ+ people. And this in turn worsens mental health and social marginalisation. To put it bluntly: the absence of LGBTQ+ representation in official communications sends a damaging message about the validity of these communities’ experiences.

    Lessons for UK universities

    To bring this back to the UK context then, a few things come to mind.

    First, the UK has its own, depressingly recent, history of government-led suppression of LGBTQ+ communication, which we’d do well to remember. Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 banned the promotion of homosexuality in schools across England, Scotland, and Wales. Repealed in England and Wales in 2003, this act led to years of silence and marginalisation within educational settings.

    Section 28 not only harmed students and staff at the time but also created a culture of fear and misinformation, curtailing inclusive teaching and research. To ensure the UK does not repeat such history, universities must prioritise legal advocacy and protection for all involved in higher education, to safeguard academic freedom and inclusivity. Being involved in the LGBTQ+ staff network as we are, we might also add that coalition building among universities, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, and non-profits can also strengthen efforts to resist any potential policy shifts that might echo the restrictive measures of the past.

    Second, Trump’s agenda also urges us to re-think our approach to US-UK research collaborations and student exchanges. There seems to be an increasing discrepancy between what the UK and US each consider to be worthy of research and funding.

    Universities in the UK should assess how they foster links with other nations whose research agendas align more closely with UK priorities, to mitigate any potential funding losses. Moreover, UK universities should ideally review their reliance on external funding from the US to determine whether any existing projects might be impacted by shifts in US policy. Equally, with US suppression of data relating to LGBTQ+ issues impacting LGBTQ+ health and wellbeing, it’s vital that UK universities ensure that their research connected to LGBTQ+ issues is readily available.

    Third, it seems crucial that UK universities futureproof their relationships with US students. The possibility of new limitations on exchange programmes, including restrictions on modules with extensive EDI content, could impact the accessibility of UK higher education for US students. Online programmes that currently enrol US students may also face scrutiny, raising concerns about whether course content is monitored or whether degrees will continue to be recognised in the US due to their inclusion of EDI principles.

    Looking forward

    UK universities have a pivotal role to play in responding to what’s happening in the US in relation to Trump’s anti-EDI stance.

    We’ve focused particularly on the impacts of these political and policy shifts on LGBTQ+ research and culture in higher education. But they represent a more wholesale attack on initiatives seeking to safeguard the wellbeing of marginalised population groups. UK universities must continue to represent a safe space for education which upholds inclusivity, critical thinking, and academic integrity. This requires a strong coalition of organisations, advocacy groups, and academic institutions working together to resist the erosion of rights and the suppression of essential research.

    Such a coalition of critically-minded parties seems all the more important given the recent ruling by the Supreme Court on 16 April 2025 in relation to the Equality Act 2010, which insisted on the binary nature of sex, which is determined by biology. As a result, this leaves trans women unable to avail themselves of the sex-based protections enshrined in the Equality Act.

    Universities, like other institutions, will need to review their policies accordingly and should do their utmost to continue to assert a safe and inclusive environment for trans people. But this decision, coming so soon after the Cass review, is also contributing to the anxiety and uncertainty experienced by LGBTQ+ people more broadly. With echoes between the US situation and recent UK developments, the direction of travel is concerning.

    By standing together, we can safeguard the rights of all marginalised communities and ensure that the integrity of scientific research, human dignity, and social progress are protected.

    Source link

  • Trump Dismantles US Institute of Museum and Library Services (YT Daily News)

    Trump Dismantles US Institute of Museum and Library Services (YT Daily News)

    The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) has put its entire staff on administrative leave following President Trump’s executive order to eliminate seven federal agencies, including IMLS. 
     
    Keith E. Sonderling has been appointed as the acting director during this transition. Staff were notified via email about their 90-day paid leave, which included instructions to return government property and had their email accounts disabled. 
     
    IMLS is a small federal agency, with about 70 employees,
    that awards grant funding to museums and libraries across the United
    States. Last year it granted $266 million to support essential cultural institutions.


    Source link

  • In the USA, universities are under attack on multiple fronts

    In the USA, universities are under attack on multiple fronts

    Last week I was in the US, as part of the CASE Global Leaders Programme, visiting five leading universities – Harvard, Boston, Princeton, Johns Hopkins and Georgetown. I also visited the United Nations, the Washington Post, the British Embassy and US university associations. I met and spoke with over 100 senior staff – mostly under the Chatham House rule – about the severe current challenges facing US universities.

    US universities are under “an unprecedented political attack,” I was told – it is “a very dangerous moment.” The Trump administration has unleashed a “flood the zone” strategy. University leaders are shocked at the rapid speed and breath of the policy and political assault. Universities are reeling from the ferocity of the attacks. The Trump administration “has declared war on colleges.”

    The Trump administration tactics are clear – they are attempting to weaken and undermine major institutions that they see as liberal ballast, a barrier to the MAGA agenda. The playbook should not be a total surprise. It was largely outlined in Project 2025, with a raft of policies to deconstruct the US administrative state. For universities, it is time for a reckoning.

    Shocks and tremors

    The elite research institutions are the primary target. Amongst these, the President’s Office have deliberated targeted a number of specific institutions – pulling $400m (£310m) of federal funding from Columbia University, saying that it failed to fight antisemitism on campus, and suspending $175m (£135m) in federal funding to the University of Pennsylvania over the school’s policy regarding transgender athletes. Making an example of these universities – through public humiliation and bullying – is an attempt to strike fear in to other institutions and scare others from speaking out. There has been a notable lack of public figures speaking out in defence of these institutions. The tactics were described to me as “if you cross them, they will come after you.”

    Worryingly, the MAGA attacks have some grounding in public opinion, coming at a time when US public confidence in higher education has been falling for a decade. Public opinion research by the Association of American Universities (AAU) shows that only 29 per cent of the US public agree with the statement that Ivy League universities “make us better off” – whereas 57 per cent believe that they “make us worse off.” Although Republicans are even more critical than Democrats, a large majority of both parties’ supporters think Ivy League universities make people worse off.

    Across US universities there is a sense of crisis, with leaders struggling to cope with the tidal wave of political attacks. Shocks and tremors are being felt across the sector – but there is no agreement on which are the primary challenges. The hierarchy of these concerns varies and the impact is certainly not uniform. I heard about over a dozen current threats:

    • removal of federal funding due to accusations of “woke ideology”
    • major research funding cuts due to cuts to USAID
    • detaining and deporting faculty and students accused of holding views and speaking on controversial topics
    • tightening of visas for international students
    • threats to increase tax on university endowments
    • federal government instruction to withdraw specific research funding
    • increasing levels of disinformation
    • hostile environment leading to loss of faculty to universities overseas
    • falling philanthropic donations, due to reputational damage and economic weather
    • falling investment income from an economic downturn
    • a chilling effect on free speech and academic freedom
    • flight of international students as families overseas view the US as not a welcoming place to send their children
    • the growing possibility of a new cold war with China
    • splits and tensions amongst the alumni and donor communities.

    Despite the huge wealth, resources, influence and global reputation, I witnessed a university sector unprepared for the tsunami of political challenges and unsure about how to respond. It is a “a very destabilising moment, we’re trying to work things out… how do we navigate the challenges, the politics…”

    After the crisis response

    US universities face choices: to fight back, to “lean in” towards the Trump agenda, to hunker down, to uphold their values, to adapt or evolve – though these options are not mutually exclusive.

    For some, it is clear that they will speak out powerfully and fight back to defend universities,

    This brave article by the president of Princeton explains how American universities have given the country prosperity and security, and strikes back against the The Trump administration’s attack on academic freedom.

    For others, there is a recognition that this is “not just about telling a better story, we also need to do things better.” Maybe universities haven’t really listened enough to the dissatisfied and acted on concerns. Perhaps there is some truth in the accusations that some parts of higher education have exasperated or created inequality, protecting the “haves” and ignoring the “have nots”. This Atlantic article How the Ivy League broke America is essential reading in this genre. For some, the answer is a much stronger focus on reaching out across divides, and renewed efforts to increase civic impact – and perhaps the curtailment of some activities.

    For all, there is a sense that this is not simply a crisis response moment, rather that universities need to think long-term, to protect the values of higher education and redouble efforts to demonstrate their impact. There is a need to think about the longer term stewardship of the institutions and “play the long game” rather than simply respond to the immediate shocks.

    The search for something to hold onto

    I also heard many comments that gave me reasons for hope. Public opinion research by the Association of American Universities (AAU) shows that 42 per cent most trust American research universities to find a cure for diseases like cancer whereas only five per cent most trust the government, and only three per cent most trust large US corporations.

    At some universities, alumni donors are coming forward to offer support to help plug the financial gap being created by research funding cuts. Many universities are refusing to back-track on commitments made on DEI issues – citing very strong support from faculty and students – and arguing clearly and consistently that diversity of people (minds, experiences, backgrounds and thought) and plurality of views is vital to support excellence.

    On the day on my visit, Harvard became the latest elite school to announce that families with incomes under $200,000 will not pay tuition as a way to bolster diversity. There is also a view that the combination of the stock market falls, public opinion and the Supreme Court may soon have the impact of curtailing some of the President’s most aggressive actions.

    Overall, my visit to the US has left me with mixed emotions: deep concerns for US universities, the loss of vital research programmes, the negative impact on access to universities, the weakening of international collaboration and the personal threats to faculty and students. I also recognise that many of the political and public views which have contributed to this onslaught do not feel alien to the situation in the UK.

    However, the trip has also given me hope. These are deeply resilient institutions, led by exceptional people, with brilliant faculty, supportive alumni and donors. There is continuing strong demand from students for a higher education – and these students want to experience a plurality of views. By upholding their values, by redoubling efforts to build public support by doing things even better, by demonstrating impact, and by taking the longer-term view I am confident that US universities can ride through this storm.

    Source link