From the Daily Briefing of The Chronicle of Higher Education: Duck-and-cover is over.
Colleges close ranks
More than a week after Harvard University galvanized higher ed by rejecting demands from the Trump administration, the sector continues to emerge from duck-and-cover mode.
Well over 200 college presidents and academic leaders signed a Tuesday statement against “undue government intrusion” into campus business. In a “call for constructive engagement” from the American Association of Colleges and Universities, the presidents said they are open to reform, but they rejected coercive government strategies like withholding federal research funding.
- “American institutions of higher learning have in common the essential freedom to determine, on academic grounds, whom to admit and what is taught, how, and by whom,” they said. “Our colleges and universities share a commitment to serve as centers of open inquiry where, in their pursuit of truth, faculty, students, and staff are free to exchange ideas and opinions across a full range of viewpoints without fear of retribution, censorship, or deportation.”
That’s a sharp contrast to the hushed tones that dominated the opening weeks of the Trump administration. Yes, in a few cases, individual college leaders — including those at Wesleyan University, Georgetown University, Princeton University, and the University of Wisconsin at Madison — pushed back on government pressure, warned about the attacks on colleges, or criticized federal-policy changes. But they were often lone, uncoordinated voices.
- College presidents frequently worried about retribution from the Trump administration, state lawmakers, or their own governing boards, some told the Daily Briefing.
Higher ed’s initial reaction was memorably skewered by The New Yorker: “Over the past weeks and months, our institution has been under unprecedented attack. Many on our campus and beyond are fearful, and are looking to us for leadership. I would like to take this opportunity to reassure each and every community member of my deep and unwavering commitment to the safety of our endowment.”
So what changed? Theories abound. Here are a few to consider:
- The administration overplayed its hand: When Columbia University offered significant changes to address concerns about campus antisemitism, federal officials called it a starting point rather than counting it as a victory. Then they issued even more aggressive demands to Harvard University, backing leaders against a wall.
- It’s looking more like amateur hour: Higher ed was set on its heels as the administration unleashed investigations and funding cuts across multiple agencies. Sustaining that momentum requires organization and a sense that institutions can benefit from complying. The government risks coming off as less forceful and more fraudulent with every report of a visa revoked without explanation, a grant withheld without warning, or a list of demands reportedly issued by mistake.
- Colleges felt the heat: Two alumni letters urging Yale University to defend academic freedom drew more than 6,000 signatures, organizers said. One letter argued Yale should “spearhead efforts to bring together other institutions of higher learning, creating a collective plan of defense.”
- Faculty organized: The University of Michigan’s Faculty Senate this week became the fifth in the Big Ten to call for administrators to adopt a mutual-defense pact, The Detroit News reported. Phillip Levin, a University of Washington professor, wrote in The New York Times about the pain of losing federal funding for a project — and the importance of setting your jaw. “When knowledge is threatened, don’t just mourn it,” Levin wrote. “Build around it. Not with rage but with the kind of resolve that moves through spreadsheets and shared documents, late nights and collective purpose.”
- Ideas arrived: Calls for collective action mean little until organizers know what they’re defending and what concrete action they might take. Higher ed seems more comfortable arguing for academic freedom today than it ever did discussing antisemitism. And its backers have been talking seriously about tactics. A professor suggested calling off college sports. Ars Technica staff members urged leaders to host “the kinds of broad-based political debates that a healthy society needs.”
The bigger picture: Collective statements are one thing. Collective action is another. As much as this is a vibe shift, the defining moments of this clash are still to come.
Featured Image: dreamstime_m_75687496.jpg
Neville Buch
Latest posts by Neville Buch (see all)
- Death in Life and Life in Death: Affective, Intellectual, and Ontological Dimensions of Human Mortality – October 2, 2026
- Psychological Symbol Cards – October 2, 2026
- The Washington Post Impact Report and American Studies – October 1, 2026