I actually think the administration's action in the case in question were perfectly acceptable given the presumption that any grants approved by the previous administration were likely for woke BS.
I used that example because there's clear symmetry between the DEI measure and the anti-DEI measure. It's telling that Stiglitz himself never picks up on this point. He only refers to Trump's "thought police," not Biden's, when Trump is clearly reacting to a previous ideological imposition. There's a case to be made for aggressively restoring institutional neutrality and balance after woke excesses. This is a broadly popular position, and one reason that Trump was reelected.
But more generally, adopting "woke" tactics (or worse) to fight woke is likely to end in a post-liberal free-for-all. As Greg Lukianoff writes about Trump's war on Harvard (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/05/trump-harvard-higher-education-law/682985/), "rights are indivisible: If the government can coerce the richest school in America without due process, it can crush a community college—or a civil-liberties nonprofit—without batting an eyelid. . . . Republicans who cheer today should take a moment’s pause from their schadenfreude and recognize that they might lament tomorrow, when a different president decides that, say, Hillsdale College or a Southern Baptist seminary is 'too extremist' to keep its tax-exempt status."
> It's telling that Stiglitz himself never picks up on this point. He only refers to Trump's "thought police," not Biden's, when Trump is clearly reacting to a previous ideological imposition.
Agreed.
> If the government can coerce the richest school in America without due process, it can crush a community college
The government has been doing that for 60 years.
> or a civil-liberties nonprofit
Do civil-liberties nonprofits normally rely on government funding?
> Hillsdale College or a Southern Baptist seminary is 'too extremist' to keep its tax-exempt status.
You mean like what happened to Bob Jones University decades ago?
Or how the State of New York recently forced an orthodox Yeshiva to allow the creation of a gay club?
The problem with taking the "what if the other side were to do this" line is that the other side has been doing this for decades.
In part, Trump won because most of the country had turned on woke excess. That doesn't just include cultural conservatives. Many Americans still value classical liberal principles like meritocracy and free speech, which DEI threatens. You can battle DEI on those grounds and keep, even expand, your broad coalition; or you can battle DEI with DEI-like measures and risk creating a backlash of your own.
Eric Kaufmann is worth quoting here (https://www.city-journal.org/article/liberal-democracy-trump-populism-conservatives): "Our civilization stands at a crossroads, where classical liberal reason and national conservatism have an opportunity to converge and redefine the political mainstream. To preserve liberal democracy, we need a rational populism committed to deep but deliberate institutional reform."
> Many Americans still value classical liberal principles like meritocracy and free speech
And Academia hasn't honored those principles for decades, even as it has slowly alienated people by charging ever more money for ever less useful degrees.
Yes. The left has largely abandoned classical liberal principles. Should the right abandon them too in order to defeat the left? That’s the question for our time. I’m doubtful that a punitive assault on institutions is likely to succeed in the long term, especially if it accomplishes the incredible feat of making even Harvard look sympathetic.
I actually think the administration's action in the case in question were perfectly acceptable given the presumption that any grants approved by the previous administration were likely for woke BS.
I used that example because there's clear symmetry between the DEI measure and the anti-DEI measure. It's telling that Stiglitz himself never picks up on this point. He only refers to Trump's "thought police," not Biden's, when Trump is clearly reacting to a previous ideological imposition. There's a case to be made for aggressively restoring institutional neutrality and balance after woke excesses. This is a broadly popular position, and one reason that Trump was reelected.
But more generally, adopting "woke" tactics (or worse) to fight woke is likely to end in a post-liberal free-for-all. As Greg Lukianoff writes about Trump's war on Harvard (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/05/trump-harvard-higher-education-law/682985/), "rights are indivisible: If the government can coerce the richest school in America without due process, it can crush a community college—or a civil-liberties nonprofit—without batting an eyelid. . . . Republicans who cheer today should take a moment’s pause from their schadenfreude and recognize that they might lament tomorrow, when a different president decides that, say, Hillsdale College or a Southern Baptist seminary is 'too extremist' to keep its tax-exempt status."
> It's telling that Stiglitz himself never picks up on this point. He only refers to Trump's "thought police," not Biden's, when Trump is clearly reacting to a previous ideological imposition.
Agreed.
> If the government can coerce the richest school in America without due process, it can crush a community college
The government has been doing that for 60 years.
> or a civil-liberties nonprofit
Do civil-liberties nonprofits normally rely on government funding?
> Hillsdale College or a Southern Baptist seminary is 'too extremist' to keep its tax-exempt status.
You mean like what happened to Bob Jones University decades ago?
Or how the State of New York recently forced an orthodox Yeshiva to allow the creation of a gay club?
The problem with taking the "what if the other side were to do this" line is that the other side has been doing this for decades.
In part, Trump won because most of the country had turned on woke excess. That doesn't just include cultural conservatives. Many Americans still value classical liberal principles like meritocracy and free speech, which DEI threatens. You can battle DEI on those grounds and keep, even expand, your broad coalition; or you can battle DEI with DEI-like measures and risk creating a backlash of your own.
Eric Kaufmann is worth quoting here (https://www.city-journal.org/article/liberal-democracy-trump-populism-conservatives): "Our civilization stands at a crossroads, where classical liberal reason and national conservatism have an opportunity to converge and redefine the political mainstream. To preserve liberal democracy, we need a rational populism committed to deep but deliberate institutional reform."
> Many Americans still value classical liberal principles like meritocracy and free speech
And Academia hasn't honored those principles for decades, even as it has slowly alienated people by charging ever more money for ever less useful degrees.
Yes. The left has largely abandoned classical liberal principles. Should the right abandon them too in order to defeat the left? That’s the question for our time. I’m doubtful that a punitive assault on institutions is likely to succeed in the long term, especially if it accomplishes the incredible feat of making even Harvard look sympathetic.
This isn't about abandoning classical principles. It's about enforcing the laws on the books against Harvard.