Tag: Critics

  • Students as curriculum critics | Wonkhe

    Students as curriculum critics | Wonkhe

    When a member of staff claimed their course reading list was “diverse” because it included authors from the UK, North America, and Australia, it captured something problematic in higher education: an entrenched Eurocentric worldview dressed as global perspective.

    Despite growing sector-wide commitments to equity, diversity and inclusion, many UK university curricula remain bounded by the ideas, voices and assumptions of the Global North. This isn’t just an issue of representation. It cuts to the core of what and whose knowledge counts and who the curriculum is for.

    Universities have long functioned as what sociologist Remi Joseph-Salisbury calls “white spaces”; spaces where whiteness is not just numerically dominant, but culturally embedded. When students from minoritised backgrounds find their lived experiences absent from course readings, case studies, or teaching examples, the message is clear: they are not the imagined subject of the curriculum.

    Lost in translation

    This exclusion is rarely intentional. However, its effects are deeply felt. Students must expend emotional labour to navigate, challenge or mentally translate course content that does not reflect their experiences or worldviews. For some, this produces what scholars such as Smith and colleagues in 2014 have termed racial battle fatigue.

    Language plays a significant role here. In many classrooms standard academic English, which is rooted in the speech of white, middle-class Britons, is upheld as the norm. Yet this language can be very different to that adopted by young people. Students who speak dialects such as Multicultural London English (MLE), or whose cultural references differ from the mainstream, are often seen as less articulate or capable. Even institutional communications, usually packed with acronyms like NSS, OfS, PGCert, and so on can create an impenetrable culture that alienates students unfamiliar with higher education’s bureaucratic vernacular.

    Such institutional language is frequently seen in formal assessment briefs and feedback mechanisms, and so existing insecurities and barriers are reinforced. Minoritised students can struggle to link the assessments to their own lived realities and performance is impacted. These are factors that will contribute towards the ethnicity degree awarding gap, at many universities where white students tend to be awarded more top grades at the end of their studies than students from minoritised backgrounds.

    From audit to agency

    To address the ethnicity degree awarding gap, universities are now moving away from peer reviews or external examiner reports for assessments of teaching and learning materials. In their place, models of evaluation have been introduced that empower students to take the lead in assessing the inclusivity of their curriculum. This isn’t a symbolic gesture. Student reviewers can not only be trained in inclusive pedagogy and curriculum theory but bring a wealth of experiences and insights that add considerable value to curriculum.

    Having a student review their teaching can be challenging for staff, but it should be viewed as a positive experience and an opportunity to develop. Practical, structured student feedback specifically about how the curriculum is experienced isn’t routinely available but by positioning students as co-creators rather than consumers of education and working with them to develop a negotiated curriculum universities can begin to develop what Bovill and Bulley in 2011 call “student–staff partnerships” in curriculum design. More importantly cultures of reflection will be built among both students and staff.

    Indeed, the insights gathered by students provide fresh ideas and impetus for change. Universities should expect to see changes such as staff diversifying reading lists, incorporating non-Western knowledge systems, adopting and adapting podcasts and visual content, removing or clarifying colloquialisms, and reflecting more critically on their own teaching assumptions. Students also benefit as they gain a deeper understanding of learning and teaching at a personal and institutional level while developing skills that make them more employable.

    Structural limits, and what they reveal

    It is important that inclusion is not viewed as a compliance exercise. Inclusivity isn’t just about content or the material on reading lists, but about systems. Class times, unit design or professional frameworks can prevent meaningful change. These barriers resonate with what Sara Ahmed calls “non-performativity”; institutional practices that talk inclusion but do little to change the power structures that sustain inequality.

    Too frequently in HE, students are asked for feedback at the end of a module; asked what is missing or could be improved. And too often, the work of inclusion is treated as a box-ticking exercise, rather than as a long-term commitment to changing institutional norms. Collaborations that give agency to students provide visible demonstration to staff and students that inclusion matters, and that they need to work together to take practical steps that make a real difference.

    Importantly, in the same way that it is vital to reduce the burden of navigating racialised systems and institutional language, inclusive practice cannot rest on the unpaid labour of those most affected by exclusion. Students employed to do this work should be compensated, recognising their expertise and time – institutions must demonstrate their commitment to this work.

    It is also important to address how gender, disability, class, and educational background also shape curriculum experience. This move reflects the understanding, drawn from Kimberlé Crenshaw’s work that inclusion must be multi-dimensional. One-size-fits-all interventions rarely address the complex realities students navigate.

    Reimagining who defines knowledge

    Curriculum audits on their own are not enough to drive change, A shift in culture is needed. The idea that academics alone define what is taught must be challenged, with students viewed not as passive recipients but as partners in learning.

    If universities are to genuinely respond to the challenges of structural inequality, they must go beyond slogans and statements. They must create space for critique, redistribute power, and invite students to shape the educational experiences that shape them in return.

    At a time when EDI initiatives in the higher education sector are facing pressure from right-wing popularist leaders it is perhaps now more important than ever that efforts to decolonise and diversify curricula continue to grow. The question for higher education institutions is whether they are willing to relax their control over whose knowledge counts.

    Practical takeaways for sector professionals

    • Start small, but with structure. Begin with a pilot group of trained student reviewers and focus on a manageable number of modules.
    • Pay students. Their labour and insights are valuable; budget for it.
    • Support staff engagement. Offer training and development to help staff reflect and act without defensiveness.
    • Embed responses in course planning. Ensure that student input leads to visible, documented changes.
    • Build community, not compliance. Inclusion isn’t just about metrics; it’s about shared commitment to equity and belonging.

    The authors are grateful for the contributions of Rebekah Kerslake and Parisa Gilani to this article.

    Source link

  • Why our critics’ whataboutery over Jimmy Kimmel is wrong

    Why our critics’ whataboutery over Jimmy Kimmel is wrong

    Jimmy Kimmel just got suspended for having an opinion. 

    Specifically, ABC pulled Jimmy Kimmel Live! off the air following backlash from the head of the Federal Communications Commission over remarks Kimmel made last week about the murder of Charlie Kirk. We have been vocal in our opposition to this, and as a result, we’ve received some criticism online. So let’s take a minute to consider some of the most common remarks and address those concerns.

    We said an extraordinary amount of things. Let’s start with filing amicus briefs in two Supreme Court cases about government pressure on private companies last term, NRA v. Vullo and Murthy v. Missouri

    Vullo was about the superintendent of New York’s Department of Financial Services pressuring insurance companies and banks to stop providing services to the National Rifle Association. The Department didn’t quite order the companies not to work with the NRA. Instead, it met with the groups, pointed out regulatory violations that didn’t have anything to do with the NRA, and suggested the state might be less interested in pursuing those regulations if the companies “ceased providing insurance to gun groups, especially the NRA.” 

    As our brief explains: 

    The First Amendment does not permit the government to censor speech via informal or indirect means. When government officials “invok[e] legal sanctions and other means of coercion, persuasion, and intimidation” to chill disfavored speech, they impose “a scheme of state censorship” just as unlawful as direct regulation.

    The Supreme Court unanimously agreed. 

    In Murthy, the states of Missouri and Louisiana and a handful of individual social media users sued various federal agencies and officials, arguing that content moderation private companies conducted during COVID-19 and the 2020 election was driven by “jawboning” — that is informal, coercive government pressure — from the Biden administration. Our brief argued that such informal pressure violates the First Amendment.

    We wrote

    Although much attention has focused on the power of “Big Tech,” it is a bad idea for government officials to huddle in back rooms with corporate honchos to decide which social media posts are “truthful” or “good” while insisting, Wizard of Oz-style, “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.” No matter how concerning it may be when private decisionmakers employ opaque or unwise moderation policies, allowing government actors to surreptitiously exercise control is far worse.

    There’s simply no daylight between our positions in these cases and our position in the current FCC controversy.

    In terms of advocacy, we stood up for a professor accused of bias after writing that if you question the lab origin of COVID-19, you should “at least consider that you are an idiot who is swallowing a whole lot of Chinese cock swaddle.” We argued against a University of Iowa policy limiting what faculty could say about masks and the virus. We criticized NYU for telling medical faculty not to talk to the press. We stood up for RAs whose university told them they couldn’t talk about it in Virginia, and RAs told they couldn’t criticize their university’s response in Maryland

    In research, last year we wrote the Fire Report on Social Media 2024, where we expanded on the problem of jawboning, and specifically how it occurred during the Biden administration. We noted, based on a survey from FIRE and IPSOS, that:

    The American public is concerned about this issue. Our polling found that 77% of Americans believe it is important for social media companies to “[be] fully transparent about any government involvement in content moderation decisions,” including 79% of Democrats, 75% of Republicans, and 81% of independents.

    So, yes. We have been loud, clear, and consistent on this issue for quite some time.

    X post 2

    In fact, we opposed cancel culture then and we oppose cancel culture now. And respectfully, with affection to our fellow co-workers, we’re not what you’d generally consider “key cultural tastemakers.”

    X post 3

    Actually, we have taken a public stand on people’s right to protest on either side of the abortion debate. Until 2022, we were focused on college campuses, so abortion clinics generally weren’t in the mission, but we did stand up for pro-life students and their right to express themselves. Just as we stood up for pro-choice students. And pro-marijuana students. And pro-Nicki Minaj students. (There are no anti-Nicki Minaj students. That’s a scientific fact. But if there were, we’d stand up for them.)

    But since we have expanded to cover freedom of expression on campus and off, Sarah McLaughlin, senior scholar of global expression at FIRE, has drawn attention to cases exactly like the one you cite.

    X post 4

    Not only did we not ban or deplatform any rights during Covid, we vehemently oppose speech bans and deplatforming. In fact, we keep a Campus Deplatforming Database to help monitor and curb such practices. And we have spoken out against government efforts to police disinformation as well as misinformation.

    X post 5

    Yes, but we were a campus-only organization at the time, and by the time we expanded in 2022, she had already sued. (Some of us were pissed personally that they ruined The Mandalorian to do it, if that helps.) Also, there’s a difference between a company caving to a cancel-culture campaign like the one that targeted Carano, and a company making a similar decision under threats from the government. Yes, both are bad for free-speech culture. But one is prohibited by the Constitution.

    Source link

  • Why FIRE is suing Secretary of State Rubio — and what our critics get wrong about noncitizens’ rights

    Why FIRE is suing Secretary of State Rubio — and what our critics get wrong about noncitizens’ rights

    FIRE is suing Secretary of State Marco Rubio to challenge two federal immigration law provisions that give him unchecked power to revoke legal immigrants’ visas and deport them just for speech protected by the First Amendment.

    And yes, we knew full-well we’d get blowback. You don’t exactly file a First Amendment lawsuit against a cabinet member without knowing it will be unpopular with parts of the American public.

    But for nonpartisan free speech defenders, that comes with the job.

    One of our plaintiffs is the student-run paper The Stanford Daily, where writers on student visas are turning down assignments related to the war in Gaza because they fear reporting on it could endanger their immigration status. We are also representing two legal noncitizens who engaged in pro-Palestinian speech and now fear being deported.

    Some of the questions we’ve received have been quite thoughtful. Others, however, are mistaken on the premises. So let’s clear the air.

    Happy to help, Obsequious Deacon. The First Amendment in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights prohibits the government from “abridging the freedom of speech,” without any distinction between citizens and aliens. If the U.S. government is acting against someone on U.S. soil, the Constitution applies.

    Remember, our liberties don’t spring from the kindness of government, but are inherent to each and every individual. The First Amendment presumes there is free speech, and is simply a restriction against government infringement of it. This recognition is what makes the American experiment exceptional and worth defending.

    This has been firmly established by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases. In Bridges v. Wixon (1945), the Court made clear that under the protection of the First Amendment, “Freedom of speech and of the press is accorded aliens residing in this country.”

    Or take it from Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who famously disagreed on a lot! Here they discuss how even immigrants not here legally (which isn’t the case in this lawsuit, where the plaintiffs are here on visas) enjoy the protection of the First Amendment.

    Additionally, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), the Court said the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to “all persons” in the country, not just citizens. In Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Court struck down a Texas law that denied public education to undocumented children, explaining that undocumented immigrants are still “persons” under the Constitution.

    The same goes for due-process protections. In Wong Wing v. United States (1896), the Court ruled that noncitizens accused of crimes are entitled to Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections, including due process and the right to a jury trial. And in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) and Sessions v. Dimaya (2018), the Court has since affirmed that due process applies to everyone in the United States, including noncitizens.

    E_Strobel X post

    We’ve never been conservative, liberal, or any other political label. We’re nonpartisan defenders of the First Amendment.

    Before we expanded our mission to defend free speech everywhere, we focused on college campuses where censorship, in recent decades, has overwhelmingly come from the left of the speaker. As a result, we often found ourselves challenging liberal administrators and defending the rights of conservative and moderate studentsprofessors, and speakers. But we don’t care about the viewpoint involved. FIRE’s motto is, “If it’s protected, we’ll defend it.”

    As for the claim that we support Hamas, defending someone’s right to speak is not the same as endorsing what they say. Defending the speech of ideological allies and opponents is the foundation of any principled defense of free expression.

    Danster X post

    No. The terms “lawful” and “illegal” are opposites, of course. The “lawfully present noncitizens” mentioned first are legally allowed to be in the country while the “illegal aliens,” by definition, are not. That said, the First Amendment applies to everyone on U.S. soil. This is America, and you shouldn’t have to prove your citizenship before offering an opinion. 

    Think of it this way, would you be comfortable if a Democratic administration deported Canadian Jordan Peterson for his speech or a European student whose Ph.D. research concentrated on proving the Wuhan lab leak theory of Covid’s origins? We hope not.

    Mark W. Smith/#2A Scholar X post

    The censorship of noncitizens affects Americans, too. If international students and green-card holders have to censor themselves out of fear, we stand to lose many ideas as a result. Should John Oliver have been forced to censor his criticism of the Iraq War on The Daily Show before he became a U.S. citizen? Should British politician Nigel Farage have been prohibited from criticizing Joe Biden during last year’s Republican National Convention? Of course not, and Americans interested in hearing their perspectives would have been all the worse for it. 

    If you’re having a conversation with someone, you deserve to hear their full opinion, not one sanitized to avoid retaliation from government censors. And if the current administration’s actions don’t worry you, just imagine the other side wielding the same power.

    tedfrank X post

    Bear in mind our lawsuit and this discussion are not about admitting noncitizens, the focus is throwing people who are already here legally out of the country for protected speech. As our preliminary injunction brief explained (check out footnote 7), the law has long distinguished the discretion afforded in determining whom to allow into the country from permissible considerations when attempting to deport someone legally here. Our client The Stanford Daily is suing Rubio because its noncitizen student writers are afraid to practice basic journalism for fear they could be deported. That’s not very American.

    Another problem here is there is not exactly universal agreement on what constitutes “American values.” Quite the contrary, it’s frequently been misused to silence dissent, which is ironic because the most fundamental of American values is to protect dissent in what increasingly seems to be the uniquely American belief that all people should be free to fully speak their minds.

    Source link

  • ‘A dangerous precedent’: Critics slam Columbia’s agreement with Trump administration

    ‘A dangerous precedent’: Critics slam Columbia’s agreement with Trump administration

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Federal officials hope their agreement with Columbia University will be a “template for other universities around the country,” U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said Thursday. 

    Her remarks, made in a NewsNation interview, come as some critics publicly worry that the deal will spur the Trump administration to put financial pressure on other universities. Columbia law professor David Pozen, for instance, wrote in a blog post Wednesday that “the agreement gives legal form to an extortion scheme.”

    Despite praise for the deal from some corners of the university, critics have also accused Columbia of capitulating to the Trump administration’s attacks on higher education.

    The Trump administration has withheld federal funding from a long list of colleges, often claiming they are not doing enough to address antisemitism or otherwise violating civil rights laws. Columbia became the face of those battles in March, when the Trump administration canceled $400 million of the New York institution’s federal grants and contracts. 

    Under the deal reached Wednesday, Columbia agreed to a litany of policy changes and concessions, including paying the federal government $221 million, to settle civil rights investigations and to have the “vast majority” of $400 million in federal grant funding reinstated, according to the university’s announcement.

    Along with having most of the money reinstated, “Columbia’s access to billions of dollars in current and future grants will be restored,” the university said in Wednesday’s announcement. 

    The deal ends the Trump administration’s probes into whether Columbia had failed to protect Jewish students from harassment and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s similar investigation into its treatment of employees. 

    The 22-page agreement is wide-ranging. Columbia agreed to provide the federal government with admissions data on both its accepted and rejected applicants, craft training “to socialize all students to campus norms and values,” and have an independent monitor oversee its compliance with the deal. It also said it would establish processes to ensure students are committed to “civil discourse, free inquiry, open debate, and the fundamental values of equality and respect.”

    Additionally, the university said it would decrease its financial dependence on international students — who make up roughly 40% of enrollment — and ask foreign applicants for their reasons “for wishing to study in the United States.” 

    And Columbia will codify measures it announced in March, which include banning masks meant to conceal one’s identity and having a senior vice provost review programming focusing on the Middle East, including the university’s Center for Palestine Studies; Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies; and Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies. 

    That leader, Miguel Urquiola, will review those and other programs — including their leadership and curriculum — to ensure they are “comprehensive and balanced,” according to the agreement. 

    Columbia also agreed to appoint an administrator to serve as a student liaison to address concerns about antisemitism. That administrator will make recommendations to top officials about how the university can support Jewish students. 

    ‘A dangerous precedent’

    Claire Shipman, Columbia’s acting president, suggested the deal doesn’t undermine the university’s autonomy. “It safeguards our independence, a critical condition for academic excellence and scholarly exploration, work that is vital to the public interest,” she said in a Wednesday statement

    Indeed, the agreement says it does not give the federal government control over the university’s employee hiring, admission decisions or academic speech. 

    However, critics have swiftly and vociferously denounced the deal, arguing that the university has yielded to an authoritarian administration and harmed the higher education sector at large.

    Source link

  • Texas lawmakers shelve SLAPP bills that would have allowed the rich and powerful to sue critics into silence

    Texas lawmakers shelve SLAPP bills that would have allowed the rich and powerful to sue critics into silence

    Good news for Texans who like their speech free. Three bills that would have gutted speech protections under the Texas Citizens Participation Act are officially dead in the water.

    At the start of the 2025 legislative session, FIRE teamed up with the Protect Free Speech Coalition — a broad coalition of civil liberties groups, news outlets, and other organizations that support free speech in Texas — to fight these bills. 

    The TCPA protects free speech by deterring frivolous lawsuits, or SLAPPs (strategic lawsuits against public participation), intended to silence citizens with the threat of court costs. 

    SLAPPs are censorship disguised as lawsuits. And laws like the TCPA are a vital defense against them.

    The first bill, HB 2988, would have eroded the TCPA by cutting its provision of mandatory attorney fees for speakers who successfully get a SLAPP dismissed. 

    That provision ensures two very important things.

    First, it makes potential SLAPP filers think twice before suing. The prospect of having to pay attorney’s fees for suing over protected speech causes would-be SLAPP filers to back off.

    Second, when a SLAPP is filed, mandatory fees ensure the victim can afford to defend their First Amendment rights. They no longer face the impossible choice between self-censorship and blowing their life savings on legal fees. Instead, they can fight back, knowing that they can recover their legal fees when they successfully defend their constitutionally protected expression against a baseless lawsuit.

    Even though the Constitution — and not one’s finances — guarantees the freedom to speak out about issues affecting their community and government, making TCPA fee-shifting discretionary would have undermined that freedom for all but the most deep-pocketed Texans. 

    FIRE’s own JT Morris testified in opposition to HB 2988 when it received a hearing in the Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence committee.

    The other two bills — SB 336 and HB 2459 — would have made it easier for SLAPP filers to run up their victim’s legal bills before the case gets dismissed, thereby putting pressure on victims to settle and give up their rights. 

    Since last fall, FIRE has been working with the Protect Free Speech Coalition to oppose these bills. We’ve met with lawmakers, testified in committee, published commentary, and driven grassroots opposition.

    All three bills are now officially dead for the 2025 legislative session, which ends today. That means one of the strongest anti-SLAPP laws in the country remains intact and Texans can continue speaking freely without fear of ruinous litigation.

    Make no mistake: SLAPPs are censorship disguised as lawsuits. And laws like the TCPA are a vital defense against them. That defense still stands. And the First Amendment still protects you and your speech on important public issues — no matter how much money’s in your wallet.

    Source link

  • Fascism Scholars, Trump Critics Leave Yale for Canada

    Fascism Scholars, Trump Critics Leave Yale for Canada

    As the Trump administration escalates its attack on universities, three fascism scholars and vocal Trump critics are leaving Yale University for the University of Toronto. But their given reasons for crossing the border vary.

    Jason Stanley, Jacob Urowsky Professor of Philosophy at Yale and author of multiple books—including How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them—said he finally accepted Toronto’s long-standing offer for a position on Friday after seeing Columbia University “completely collapse and give in to an authoritarian regime.”

    In a move that has unnerved faculty across the country, Columbia’s administration largely conceded to demands from the Trump administration, which had cut $400 million of the university’s federal grants and contracts for what it said was Columbia’s failure to address campus antisemitism. Among other moves, the Ivy League institution gave campus officers arrest authority and appointed a new senior vice provost to oversee academic programs focused on the Middle East.

    “I was genuinely undecided before that,” Stanley said. Now he’s leaving Yale to be the named chair in American studies at Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy. According to the university, the intent is for Stanley also to be cross-appointed to the philosophy department. Two popular philosophy blogs previously reported the move.

    “What I worry about is that Yale and other Ivy League institutions do not understand what they face,” Stanley said. He loves Yale and expected to spend the rest of his career there, he said; while he still hopes for the opportunity to return some day, he’s nervous Yale “will do what Columbia did.”

    Stanley said Toronto’s Munk School “raided Yale” for some of its prominent professors of democracy and authoritarianism to establish a project on defending democracy internationally—an effort that began long before the election.

    Also leaving Yale for the Munk School is Timothy Snyder, author of books including The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America, and Marci Shore, author of The Ukrainian Night: An Intimate History of Revolution and other works. Snyder and Shore are married.

    Stanley said Toronto reached out to him back in April 2023, during the Biden administration, and he restarted conversations after the election. He finally took the job Friday. The university told Inside Higher Ed it had been trying to recruit Snyder and Shore for years, saying, “We’re always looking for the best and brightest.”

    Snyder, the Richard C. Levin Professor of History at Yale, will become the Munk School’s inaugural Chair in Modern European History, supported by the Temerty Endowment for Ukrainian Studies. A spokesperson for Snyder said he made his decision for personal reasons, and he made it before the election.

    In an emailed statement Wednesday, Snyder said, “The opportunity came at a time when my spouse and I had to address some difficult family matters.” He said he had “no grievance with Yale, no desire to leave the U.S. I am very happy with the idea of a move personally but, aside from a strong appreciation of what U of T has to offer, the motivations are largely that—personal.”

    But when asked for her reasoning, Shore told Inside Higher Ed in an email that “the personal and political were, as often is the case, intertwined. We might well have made the move in any case, but we didn’t make our final decision until after the November elections,” she wrote.

    Shore, a Yale history professor, will become the Munk School Chair in European Intellectual History, supported by the same endowment as her husband.

    “I sensed that this time, this second Trump election, would be still much worse than the first—the checks and balances have been dismantled,” she wrote. “I can feel that the country is going into free fall. I fear there’s going to be a civil war. And I don’t want to bring my kids back into that. I also don’t feel confident that Yale or other American universities will manage to protect either their students or their faculty.”

    She also said it didn’t escape her that Yale failed to publicly defend Snyder when Vice President JD Vance criticized him on X in January. After Trump nominated Pete Hegseth as defense secretary, Snyder—who has repeatedly excoriated the Trump administration in the media—posted that “a Christian Reconstructionist war on Americans led from the Department of Defense is likely to break the United States.”

    Vance reposted that with the caption “That this person is a professor at Yale is actually an embarrassment.” Elon Musk, X’s owner, responded in agreement.

    ‘They Need to Band Together’

    Leaving for Canada might sound like a futile move, given that Trump has threatened to annex it.

    “That’s why I’m definitely not thinking of it as fleeing fascism; I’m thinking of it as defending Canada,” Stanley said. “Freedom of inquiry does not seem to be under threat in Canada,” he said, and moving there will allow him to be engaged in “an international fight against fascism.”

    Nonetheless, he said it’s heartbreaking to leave the Yale philosophy department. He would consider returning to Yale “if there’s evidence that universities are standing up more boldly to the threats,” he said. “They need to band together.”

    Yale spokesperson Karen Peart told Inside Higher Ed in an email that Yale “continues to be home to world-class faculty members who are dedicated to excellence in scholarship and teaching.” She added, “Yale is proud of its global faculty community which includes faculty who may no longer work at the institution, or whose contributions to academia may continue at a different home institution. Faculty members make decisions about their careers for a variety of reasons and the university respects all such decisions.”

    To be sure, the Yale professors are not the first or only U.S. faculty to accept academic appointments outside the country. European universities, at least, have been trying to recruit American researchers. But before Trump’s re-election, there was a dearth of data on the previously rumored academic exodus from red states to blue, supposedly spurred by conservative policy changes.

    Isaac Kamola, director of the American Association of University Professors’ Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom, said he’s now had conversations with multiple faculty members who are naturalized citizens “and still think that the administration might be coming after them.”

    And while star professors at Ivy League institutions are more likely than other faculty to have the opportunity to leave, Yale law professor Keith Whittington, founding chair of the Academic Freedom Alliance, said he thinks such professors are more likely to take those opportunities now.

    “I’ve seen efforts by high-quality academic institutions in other countries to start making the pitch to American academics,” Whittington said. He noted that even faculty at prestigious and well-endowed universities have concerns that their institution and higher ed as a whole are “not as stable as one might once have thought.”

    He said the Trump administration has targeted specific universities with “quite serious efforts to threaten those institutions with crippling financial consequences if they don’t adopt policies that the administration would prefer that they adopt.” And such a playbook could easily be repeated “at practically any institution in the country,” he said.

    Source link