Podcasts about Academic freedom

In this episode, Jessica Levinson unpacks the major legal clash between Harvard University and the Trump administration over a $2.6 billion freeze on federal research funding that impacts vital medical studies. Harvard argues the cuts violate its First Amendment rights and the Administrative Procedures Act, claiming they're being punished for not complying with federal demands related to antisemitism policies. The Trump administration insists it's merely a contract dispute, asserting their right to cut funding if Harvard doesn't align with federal priorities. Jessica highlights that the judge in the case seems skeptical of the Trump administration's stance and notes that the outcome could have sweeping effects on academic freedom and federal funding for universities across the country.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:The Legal Battle Over Federal Funding and Academic Freedom: The episode centers on the case of Harvard University vs. the Trump administration over a $2.6 billion freeze in federal research funding to Harvard. Jessica Levinson explains that this legal clash is significant because it questions the extent of federal power over universities and touches on core issues of academic independence and freedom.Harvard's Arguments: First Amendment and Administrative Procedures Act: Harvard argues that the funding freeze violates its First Amendment rights—claiming it's being punished for not complying with federal demands that affect speech and institutional governance. Additionally, Harvard contends the Trump administration failed to follow the correct legal processes outlined in the Administrative Procedures Act, making the funding cuts arbitrary and lacking proper justification.The Trump Administration's Position and Judicial Skepticism: The Trump administration frames the dispute as a simple breach-of-contract issue, saying grant contracts allow for cancellation when an institution's actions don't align with federal priorities. In court, however, the judge sounded skeptical of the administration's position, questioning whether the funding cut was improperly suppressing speech and whether there was enough evidence to justify such a drastic move.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

In this episode, I discuss the Trump administration's war on higher education and place it within the context of the history of academic freedom and previous assaults on it. Get 3 months of premium wireless service for $15 bucks a month at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠MintMobile.com/Blindness⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Check out ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠the show merch⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, perfect for gifts!  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Pledge support on Patreon to get an ad-free feed with exclusive episodes!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Check out my novel, Manuscript Found!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Find a transcript of this episode with source citations and related imagery at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.historicalblindness.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Direct all advertising inquiries to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠advertising@airwavemedia.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.airwavemedia.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to find other high-quality podcasts! Some music on this episode was licensed under a Blue Dot Sessions blanket license at the time of this episode's publication. Tracks include "Cicle DR Valga," "Bauxite," "The Gran Dias," "Minister Creek," "Leatherbound," "Cicle Gerano," JoDon," "Kettl etopper," and "Delicates." Additional music, including "Remedy for Melancholy," is by Kai Engel, licensed under Creative Commons. Other music: "Leaving Home" by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 Licensehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Amid escalating federal pressure on universities, Stanford Law School alum Greg Lukianoff, JD '00, joins host Professor Pam Karlan for a sharp look at the free speech firestorms engulfing universities like Harvard and Columbia. First Amendment champion, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), and co-author of The Coddling of the American Mind, Lukianoff recently penned an essay for The Atlantic titled “Trump's Attacks Threaten Much More Than Harvard.” In this episode, Lukianoff expands on his essay, breaking down the Trump administration's tactics to punish elite institutions, from defunding threats and faculty interference to student visa crackdowns, while also calling out universities themselves for stifling dissent and eroding public trust in higher education.Links:Greg Lukianoff  >>> FIRE pageThe Canceling of the American Mind >>> web pageThe Coddling of the American Mind >>> web page“Trump's Attacks Threaten Much More Than Harvard” >>> The Atlantic pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00) Introduction of Greg Lukianoff(00:05:01) Free Speech and Academic Freedom(00:10:01) Challenges to Free Speech(00:15:01) Legal Cases and Free Speech(00:20:01) Free Speech and the Government (00:30:01) Future of Free Speech

Today Drs. Tim Slekar and Johnny Lupinacci discuss an article Tim found in the New York Times about a law student at the University of Florida. This student wrote an academic paper which made controversial arguments suggesting that the United States constitution only applies to white people. What happens when an academic work doesn't just approach the line of decency but breaks right through it? What obligations do educators and administrators have as they weigh their competing duties to protect both academic freedom and safe and diverse campuses? The Drs. discuss. Producer Jakob is a free speech supporter, and he thinks that this guy seems like a jerk to him. BustED Pencils: Fully Leaded Education Talk is part of Civic Media. Subscribe to the podcast to be sure not to miss out on a single episode! Go to bustedpencils.com for swag, all of our episodes, and for information on partnering with us! For information on all of the programming across the Civic Media network, head over to https://civicmedia.us/shows. Join the conversation by calling or texting us at 608-557-8577 to leave a message!

In this episode, Stanford Law Professor Evelyn Douek, a First Amendment scholar and permanent U.S. resident, expands on her recent Atlantic essay, “Can I Teach the First Amendment If I Only Have a Green Card?” She reflects on the paradox of teaching constitutional protections for free speech while watching the U.S. government detain or revoke visas for foreign students and other non-citizen residents engaged in protest or student journalism. Douek joins fellow Stanford Law professor Pamela Karlan to explore what these developments could mean for the future of American universities, long known for drawing global talent. Their conversation highlights the growing tension between the nation's commitment to free expression and policies that penalize dissent by non-citizens.Links:Evelyn Douek  >>> Stanford Law page“Can I Teach the First Amendment If I Only Have a Green Card?” >>> The Atlantic pageModerated Content podcast >>>  Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00) Introduction and Exercising First Amendment Rights(00:01:53) Writing the Essay(00:02:27) Teaching the First Amendment(00:15:25) Freedom of Speech and Religion(00:16:11) Challenges of Teaching the First Amendment

Our guest: Luiza Anna Bialasiewicz Democracy in Question? is brought to you by:• Central European University: CEU• The Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: AHCD• The Podcast Company: scopeaudio Follow us on social media!• Central European University: @weareceu.bsky.social• Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: @ahcdemocracy.bsky.social Subscribe to the show. If you enjoyed what you listened to, you can support us by leaving a review and sharing our podcast in your networks! 

Ellen Schrecker is the preeminent historian of McCarthyism/The Red Scare in America and we had a really great conversation with her about the resurgence of political repression today . . . Professor Schrecker argues that what we're seeing right now under the Trump administration, especially the attack on Palestine advocates on campuses, is already worse than the early Cold War years. We discussed how the two periods compare: what the motivation was (charges of communism and anti-semitism); the ways in which targeted groups, such as universities and unions, purged themselves before the government had to do it; how the resistance today is so much larger than it was in the 1950s; and what we can do to combat it.Bio//Ellen Schrecker is professor emerita at Yeshiva University and has published extensively on McCarthyism in America, especially the red scare and the universities. Her books include: . . . The Lost Promise: American Universities in the 1960s . . . The Lost Soul of Higher Education: Corporatization, the Assault on Academic Freedom, and the End of the American University. . . . Cold War Triumphalism: Exposing the Misuse of History after the Fall of Communism (Editor). . . . American Inquisition: The Era of McCarthyism (compact disc). . . . The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents . . . Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America. . . . No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities-------------------------------------------Outro- "Green and Red Blues" by MoodyLinks//+ Prof. Schrecker's Website: https://www.ellenschrecker.com/+ Ellen Schrecker: Worse Than McCarthyism: Universities in the Age of Trump (https://bit.ly/4kDh7Fa)Follow Green and Red// +G&R Linktree: ⁠⁠⁠https://linktr.ee/greenandredpodcast⁠⁠⁠ +Our rad website: ⁠⁠⁠https://greenandredpodcast.org/⁠⁠⁠ + Join our Discord community (https://discord.gg/3a6AX7Qy)+Follow us on Substack (https://greenandredpodcast.substack.com)+Follow us on Bluesky (https://bsky.app/profile/podcastgreenred.bsky.social)Support the Green and Red Podcast// +Become a Patron at https://www.patreon.com/greenredpodcast +Or make a one time donation here: ⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/DonateGandR⁠⁠⁠ Our Networks// +We're part of the Labor Podcast Network: ⁠⁠⁠https://www.laborradionetwork.org/⁠⁠ +We're part of the Anti-Capitalist Podcast Network: linktr.ee/anticapitalistpodcastnetwork +Listen to us on WAMF (90.3 FM) in New Orleans (https://wamf.org/) + Check us out! We made it into the top 100 Progressive Podcasts lists (#68) (https://bit.ly/432XNJT) This is a Green and Red Podcast (@PodcastGreenRed) production. Produced by Bob (@bobbuzzanco) and Scott (@sparki1969). Edited by Scott.

2/2: #HARVARD: ANTISEMITISM IS NEITHER FREEDOM OF SPEECH NOR ACADEMIC FREEDOM. TAL FORTGANG, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE, CIVITAS INSTITUTE 1917 YALE

1/2: #HARVARD: ANTISEMITISM IS NEITHER FREEDOM OF SPEECH NOR ACADEMIC FREEDOM. TAL FORTGANG, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE, CIVITAS INSTITUTE 1910 HARVARD YALE

Preview: Colleague Tal Fortgang of the Manhattan Institute comments on Harvard University President Alan Garber asserting academic freedom to fend off Trump administration alarm at antisemitism tolerated on campus and in departments. More later. 1910

What if the recent crackdown on elite universities didn't start with Trump—but with Obama? In this episode, we trace a surprising through-line connecting Obama's Title IX enforcement to Trump's Title VI threats. Harvard Law Professor Jacob Gersen joins us to reveal how both presidents used informal bureaucratic tools to reshape higher education—often without Congress. What does this say about presidential power and academic freedom in America?Papers discussed:“The Sex Bureaucracy”: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2750143“The Six Bureaucracy”: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5199652

 Today:Greg Weiner, President of Assumption University, argues Trump has a point about liberal campus ideology. And Rick Steves joins for a conversation about the importance of immersing yourself in other cultures.

In recent weeks, the Trump Administration has escalated intimidation efforts against Harvard University and other private colleges, by canceling billions in federal funding and threatening to revoke tax-exempt status unless the schools make major changes to their hiring and teaching practices.  Andrew Manuel Crespo joins Taongal Leslie to discuss the legal strategies behind the administration's attacks on higher education and how the academy can defend its independence.Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.orgHost: Lindsay Langholz, Senior Director of Policy and Program, ACSGuest: Andrew Manuel Crespo, Morris Wasserstein Public Interest Professor of Law at Harvard University and General Counsel of AAUP-Harvard Faculty ChapterLink: Complaint, AAUP-Harvard v. United States Dept. of JusticeLink: Federal Workers Legal Defense NetworkLink: ACS National Convention SeriesVisit the Podcast Website: Broken Law Podcast Email the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.org Follow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Bluesky | LinkedIn | YouTube -----------------Broken Law: About the law, who it serves, and who it doesn't.----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2025.

Eric Sampson and Rebecca Tuvel explore the contested issue of academic freedom. They discuss the tensions that emerge when universities try to balance the promotion of diverse intellectual perspectives with concerns over potential harm to community members, as seen in controversies involving figures like philosopher Peter Singer. Drawing on debates about gender, race, and ethics, they analyze the institutional challenges of fostering open inquiry while ensuring a safe and respectful academic environment. Join this conversation to reflect on the evolving landscape of higher education and the fundamental questions at stake in preserving academic freedom.[00:00] Introduction[00:09] Thought Experiment: The Peter Singer Controversy[02:30] Academic Freedom vs. Harm and Danger[07:36] The Role of Universities in Handling Controversial Topics[11:46] Institutional Model of Academic Philosophy[17:25] Historical Shifts in Moral and Scientific Views[31:29] Debates on Harm in High-Stakes Moral Topics[34:02] Mischaracterization of Controversial Views[38:05] Protests and Speech Restrictions on Campus[50:20] Viewpoint Diversity and Government Enforcement[55:33] Donor Influence on Academic Freedom[58:31] Boycotts and Freedom of Research[01:02:01] Concerns of Indoctrination and Institutional Reforms[01:06:59] Conclusion and Final Thoughts

Send us a textUniversity administrators have imposed an unprecedented array of repressive measures designed to squelch student protests against Israel's war in Gaza. Faculty have been affected as well, with many losing their jobs for advocating for Palestine. Margot Patterson talks to NYU Professor Andrew Ross, the secretary of Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine, a national network of 130 campus chapters supporting student protesters and academic freedom, and Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), about the repression of dissent on campuses, the weaponization of antisemitism and the new McCarthyism. They say what's involved is not just pro-Palestine speech but an effort to destroy American universities. | 

At the 100 day mark of Donald Trump's second term as president, the political scientists at Bright Line Watch released their 25th report on the state of American democracy entitled “Threats to democracy and academic freedom after Trump's second first 100 days.” Based on polling both experts (760 political scientists) and the public (representative sample of 2000 Americans), the Bright Line Watch researchers find that the Trump administration has challenged constitutional and democratic norms on a wide range of issues, including the scope of executive power and the authority of courts to check it, individual freedom of expression, due process and habeas corpus, immigration, and academic freedom. In this episode of POSTSCRIPT: Conversations on Politics and Political Science, two of Bright Line Watch's co-directors analyze the latest report – and what it means for American democracy. Topics include democratic performance, threats to democracy and academic freedom and self-censorship. Dr. John Carey (he/him) is the Wentworth Professor in the Social Sciences at Dartmouth College. He is the author of 6 books and dozens of articles on democratic institutions, representation, and political beliefs. Dr. Gretchen Helmke is the Thomas H. Jackson Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Political Science and faculty director of the Democracy Center at the University of Rochester. Her research focuses on democracy and the rule of law in Latin America and the United States. Her new co-authored article definition and measuring democratic norms is forthcoming in the Annual Review of Political Science. She has been named a Guggenheim Fellow for 2025. Mentioned: Bright Line Watch's April 2025 report, Threats to Democracy and Academic Freedom after Trump's Second First 100 Days (based on parallel surveys of 760 political scientists and a representative sample of 2,000 Americans fielded in April). Bright Line Watch homepage with data and past reports John Carey on NPR's All Things Considered, 4/22 discussing the latest report. Adam Przeworski's Substack Diary (free to subscribe and read) Democratic Erosion Project (with dataset that Gretchen mentioned) Susan's New Books Network conversation with Dr. Sue Stokes on the importance of integrating comparative politics and American politics. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

At the 100 day mark of Donald Trump's second term as president, the political scientists at Bright Line Watch released their 25th report on the state of American democracy entitled “Threats to democracy and academic freedom after Trump's second first 100 days.” Based on polling both experts (760 political scientists) and the public (representative sample of 2000 Americans), the Bright Line Watch researchers find that the Trump administration has challenged constitutional and democratic norms on a wide range of issues, including the scope of executive power and the authority of courts to check it, individual freedom of expression, due process and habeas corpus, immigration, and academic freedom. In this episode of POSTSCRIPT: Conversations on Politics and Political Science, two of Bright Line Watch's co-directors analyze the latest report – and what it means for American democracy. Topics include democratic performance, threats to democracy and academic freedom and self-censorship. Dr. John Carey (he/him) is the Wentworth Professor in the Social Sciences at Dartmouth College. He is the author of 6 books and dozens of articles on democratic institutions, representation, and political beliefs. Dr. Gretchen Helmke is the Thomas H. Jackson Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Political Science and faculty director of the Democracy Center at the University of Rochester. Her research focuses on democracy and the rule of law in Latin America and the United States. Her new co-authored article definition and measuring democratic norms is forthcoming in the Annual Review of Political Science. She has been named a Guggenheim Fellow for 2025. Mentioned: Bright Line Watch's April 2025 report, Threats to Democracy and Academic Freedom after Trump's Second First 100 Days (based on parallel surveys of 760 political scientists and a representative sample of 2,000 Americans fielded in April). Bright Line Watch homepage with data and past reports John Carey on NPR's All Things Considered, 4/22 discussing the latest report. Adam Przeworski's Substack Diary (free to subscribe and read) Democratic Erosion Project (with dataset that Gretchen mentioned) Susan's New Books Network conversation with Dr. Sue Stokes on the importance of integrating comparative politics and American politics. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

As student protests over Gaza sweep college campuses, one case is testing the limits of free speech and immigration law in America. Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia student and lawful permanent resident, was arrested by ICE without a warrant and sent to a remote detention center in Louisiana—allegedly for his political advocacy.In this episode, we sit down with Khalil's lawyer Baher Azmy, who is also the Legal Director of the Center of Constitutional Rights, to unpack the disturbing legal maneuver behind Khalil's detention: a rarely used immigration clause that gives the Secretary of State near-total discretion to deport individuals deemed a “foreign policy risk.” What does this case reveal about the future of dissent and academic freedom?

At the 100 day mark of Donald Trump's second term as president, the political scientists at Bright Line Watch released their 25th report on the state of American democracy entitled “Threats to democracy and academic freedom after Trump's second first 100 days.” Based on polling both experts (760 political scientists) and the public (representative sample of 2000 Americans), the Bright Line Watch researchers find that the Trump administration has challenged constitutional and democratic norms on a wide range of issues, including the scope of executive power and the authority of courts to check it, individual freedom of expression, due process and habeas corpus, immigration, and academic freedom. In this episode of POSTSCRIPT: Conversations on Politics and Political Science, two of Bright Line Watch's co-directors analyze the latest report – and what it means for American democracy. Topics include democratic performance, threats to democracy and academic freedom and self-censorship. Dr. John Carey (he/him) is the Wentworth Professor in the Social Sciences at Dartmouth College. He is the author of 6 books and dozens of articles on democratic institutions, representation, and political beliefs. Dr. Gretchen Helmke is the Thomas H. Jackson Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Political Science and faculty director of the Democracy Center at the University of Rochester. Her research focuses on democracy and the rule of law in Latin America and the United States. Her new co-authored article definition and measuring democratic norms is forthcoming in the Annual Review of Political Science. She has been named a Guggenheim Fellow for 2025. Mentioned: Bright Line Watch's April 2025 report, Threats to Democracy and Academic Freedom after Trump's Second First 100 Days (based on parallel surveys of 760 political scientists and a representative sample of 2,000 Americans fielded in April). Bright Line Watch homepage with data and past reports John Carey on NPR's All Things Considered, 4/22 discussing the latest report. Adam Przeworski's Substack Diary (free to subscribe and read) Democratic Erosion Project (with dataset that Gretchen mentioned) Susan's New Books Network conversation with Dr. Sue Stokes on the importance of integrating comparative politics and American politics. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At the 100 day mark of Donald Trump's second term as president, the political scientists at Bright Line Watch released their 25th report on the state of American democracy entitled “Threats to democracy and academic freedom after Trump's second first 100 days.” Based on polling both experts (760 political scientists) and the public (representative sample of 2000 Americans), the Bright Line Watch researchers find that the Trump administration has challenged constitutional and democratic norms on a wide range of issues, including the scope of executive power and the authority of courts to check it, individual freedom of expression, due process and habeas corpus, immigration, and academic freedom. In this episode of POSTSCRIPT: Conversations on Politics and Political Science, two of Bright Line Watch's co-directors analyze the latest report – and what it means for American democracy. Topics include democratic performance, threats to democracy and academic freedom and self-censorship. Dr. John Carey (he/him) is the Wentworth Professor in the Social Sciences at Dartmouth College. He is the author of 6 books and dozens of articles on democratic institutions, representation, and political beliefs. Dr. Gretchen Helmke is the Thomas H. Jackson Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Political Science and faculty director of the Democracy Center at the University of Rochester. Her research focuses on democracy and the rule of law in Latin America and the United States. Her new co-authored article definition and measuring democratic norms is forthcoming in the Annual Review of Political Science. She has been named a Guggenheim Fellow for 2025. Mentioned: Bright Line Watch's April 2025 report, Threats to Democracy and Academic Freedom after Trump's Second First 100 Days (based on parallel surveys of 760 political scientists and a representative sample of 2,000 Americans fielded in April). Bright Line Watch homepage with data and past reports John Carey on NPR's All Things Considered, 4/22 discussing the latest report. Adam Przeworski's Substack Diary (free to subscribe and read) Democratic Erosion Project (with dataset that Gretchen mentioned) Susan's New Books Network conversation with Dr. Sue Stokes on the importance of integrating comparative politics and American politics. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

At the 100 day mark of Donald Trump's second term as president, the political scientists at Bright Line Watch released their 25th report on the state of American democracy entitled “Threats to democracy and academic freedom after Trump's second first 100 days.” Based on polling both experts (760 political scientists) and the public (representative sample of 2000 Americans), the Bright Line Watch researchers find that the Trump administration has challenged constitutional and democratic norms on a wide range of issues, including the scope of executive power and the authority of courts to check it, individual freedom of expression, due process and habeas corpus, immigration, and academic freedom. In this episode of POSTSCRIPT: Conversations on Politics and Political Science, two of Bright Line Watch's co-directors analyze the latest report – and what it means for American democracy. Topics include democratic performance, threats to democracy and academic freedom and self-censorship. Dr. John Carey (he/him) is the Wentworth Professor in the Social Sciences at Dartmouth College. He is the author of 6 books and dozens of articles on democratic institutions, representation, and political beliefs. Dr. Gretchen Helmke is the Thomas H. Jackson Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Political Science and faculty director of the Democracy Center at the University of Rochester. Her research focuses on democracy and the rule of law in Latin America and the United States. Her new co-authored article definition and measuring democratic norms is forthcoming in the Annual Review of Political Science. She has been named a Guggenheim Fellow for 2025. Mentioned: Bright Line Watch's April 2025 report, Threats to Democracy and Academic Freedom after Trump's Second First 100 Days (based on parallel surveys of 760 political scientists and a representative sample of 2,000 Americans fielded in April). Bright Line Watch homepage with data and past reports John Carey on NPR's All Things Considered, 4/22 discussing the latest report. Adam Przeworski's Substack Diary (free to subscribe and read) Democratic Erosion Project (with dataset that Gretchen mentioned) Susan's New Books Network conversation with Dr. Sue Stokes on the importance of integrating comparative politics and American politics. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

At the 100 day mark of Donald Trump's second term as president, the political scientists at Bright Line Watch released their 25th report on the state of American democracy entitled “Threats to democracy and academic freedom after Trump's second first 100 days.” Based on polling both experts (760 political scientists) and the public (representative sample of 2000 Americans), the Bright Line Watch researchers find that the Trump administration has challenged constitutional and democratic norms on a wide range of issues, including the scope of executive power and the authority of courts to check it, individual freedom of expression, due process and habeas corpus, immigration, and academic freedom. In this episode of POSTSCRIPT: Conversations on Politics and Political Science, two of Bright Line Watch's co-directors analyze the latest report – and what it means for American democracy. Topics include democratic performance, threats to democracy and academic freedom and self-censorship. Dr. John Carey (he/him) is the Wentworth Professor in the Social Sciences at Dartmouth College. He is the author of 6 books and dozens of articles on democratic institutions, representation, and political beliefs. Dr. Gretchen Helmke is the Thomas H. Jackson Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Political Science and faculty director of the Democracy Center at the University of Rochester. Her research focuses on democracy and the rule of law in Latin America and the United States. Her new co-authored article definition and measuring democratic norms is forthcoming in the Annual Review of Political Science. She has been named a Guggenheim Fellow for 2025. Mentioned: Bright Line Watch's April 2025 report, Threats to Democracy and Academic Freedom after Trump's Second First 100 Days (based on parallel surveys of 760 political scientists and a representative sample of 2,000 Americans fielded in April). Bright Line Watch homepage with data and past reports John Carey on NPR's All Things Considered, 4/22 discussing the latest report. Adam Przeworski's Substack Diary (free to subscribe and read) Democratic Erosion Project (with dataset that Gretchen mentioned) Susan's New Books Network conversation with Dr. Sue Stokes on the importance of integrating comparative politics and American politics. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Christopher Rufo and Glenn Greenwald debate the role of government in higher education, the meaning of academic freedom, the American Founders' vision for universities, and more.  ------------ Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET. Follow Christopher Rufo Become part of our Locals community Follow System Update:  Twitter Instagram TikTok Facebook   LinkedIn  

If universities believe they should be free from government interference and that students and faculty have the right to freely express whatever viewpoints they hold, then the universities should be held to the same standard, right? Hosts and finance professors Jonathan Berk and Jules van Binsbergen are joined by Richard Saller, an American classist and former interim president of Stanford University, to discuss whether or not the government has the right to intervene in university affairs and the hypocrisy that sometimes surrounds these issues. The conversation covers the recent statement signed by 562 university presidents advocating for academic freedom, examples of academic censorship, and the impact of federal funding on universities. They also raise questions about what true academic freedom means as universities have grown increasingly homogenous, and propose solutions to how universities can live up to their mission of being a place where all viewpoints can be expressed.  Find All Else Equal on the web:  https://lauder.wharton.upenn.edu/allelse/All Else Equal: Making Better Decisions Podcast is a production of the UPenn Wharton Lauder Institute through University FM.

Listen to the podcast to hear the full conversation. This week, Dickinson College President John Jones and Susquehanna University President Jonathan Green joined more than 300 higher-education leaders in publicly condemning what they described as “unprecedented government overreach and political interference endangering American education and public research funding.” In a statement circulated nationally, the signers affirmed their commitment to campuses as “centers of open inquiry where, in the pursuit of truth, faculty and students … are free to exchange ideas and opinions across a full range of viewpoints without fear of retribution, censorship, and deportation.”Support WITF: https://www.witf.org/support/give-now/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Trump administration has embarked on a campaign aiming to remake how universities operate. The efforts to crack down on protests and diversity initiatives are part of what the White House says is a push to address antisemitism. But there are concerns about how these moves could impact academic freedom and free speech on campuses. Jeffrey Brown reports for our series, Rethinking College. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

In this episode of Passing Judgment, host Jessica Levinson speaks with NPR's Elissa Nadworny to unpack the Trump administration's efforts to withhold federal funding from colleges and universities over issues like antisemitism and DEI practices. They discuss how these unprecedented moves are impacting not campus life, but vital medical and scientific research nationwide. Elissa explains the legal challenges schools like Harvard are mounting in response, the stakes involved for the entire higher education sector, and the broader implications for public policy.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Federal Funding as a Lever in Higher Education Policy: The episode opens by surveying recent actions from the Trump administration regarding federal funding for colleges and universities. The administration is using financial levers—pausing, freezing, or cutting funds—to influence policies on campus, particularly tied to issues like DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) and antisemitism. Mechanisms and Legality of Federal Control: The speakers discuss how and why the administration has the power to control this funding. The complexities of federal funding—who controls the purse strings, when Congress vs. the executive branch has authority, and what legal mechanisms are at play—come up. The episode highlights that while presidents can make funding conditional, the legality often hinges on whether proper procedures are followed (Administrative Procedures Act), not just on broad authority.Who Really Loses When Funds Are Cut: The speakers emphasize that federal research dollars are not just about student amenities—they fund major scientific, medical, and technological research. The implications of large-scale cuts ripple well beyond campuses, potentially hurting national health, technological innovation, and local economies (since universities are major employers and research hubs).Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

In this episode of LIGHT TALK, The Lumen Brothers talk about everything from Tharon's Magic, to The Coming Death of Academic Freedom for America's Educators. Join Steve, David, and Stan as they pontificate about: The reduction of scholarships for Undergraduate Design/Tech students; The weeding away of support for higher education; How to create subtle lighting cues; The "TB Profile"; "Color with a Full-Time Attitude"; Should you be hesitant to attend a university in a Red State?; Licking Frogs; and Will the tariffs negatively affect the entertainment lighting industry?  Nothing is Taboo, Nothing is Sacred, and Very Little Makes Sense.

On this episode of Crazy Wisdom, I, Stewart Alsop, spoke with Neil Davies, creator of the Extelligencer project, about survival strategies in what he calls the “Dark Forest” of modern civilization — a world shaped by cryptographic trust, intelligence-immune system fusion, and the crumbling authority of legacy institutions. We explored how concepts like zero-knowledge proofs could defend against deepening informational warfare, the shift toward tribal "patchwork" societies, and the challenge of building a post-institutional framework for truth-seeking. Listeners can find Neil on Twitter as @sigilante and explore more about his work in the Extelligencer substack.Check out this GPT we trained on the conversation!Timestamps00:00 Introduction of Neil Davies and the Extelligencer project, setting the stage with Dark Forest theory and operational survival concepts.05:00 Expansion on Dark Forest as a metaphor for Internet-age exposure, with examples like scam evolution, parasites, and the vulnerability of modern systems.10:00 Discussion of immune-intelligence fusion, how organisms like anthills and the Portuguese Man o' War blend cognition and defense, leading into memetic immune systems online.15:00 Introduction of cryptographic solutions, the role of signed communications, and the growing importance of cryptographic attestation against sophisticated scams.20:00 Zero-knowledge proofs explained through real-world analogies like buying alcohol, emphasizing minimal information exposure and future-proofing identity verification.25:00 Transition into post-institutional society, collapse of legacy trust structures, exploration of patchwork tribes, DAOs, and portable digital organizations.30:00 Reflection on association vs. hierarchy, the persistence of oligarchies, and the shift from aristocratic governance to manipulated mass democracy.35:00 AI risks discussed, including trapdoored LLMs, epistemic hygiene challenges, and historical examples like gold fulminate booby-traps in alchemical texts.40:00 Controlled information flows, secular religion collapse, questioning sources of authority in a fragmented information landscape.45:00 Origins and evolution of universities, from medieval student-driven models to Humboldt's research-focused institutions, and the absorption by the nation-state.50:00 Financialization of universities, decay of independent scholarship, and imagining future knowledge structures outside corrupted legacy frameworks.Key InsightsThe "Dark Forest" is not just a cosmological metaphor, but a description of modern civilization's hidden dangers. Neil Davies explains that today's world operates like a Dark Forest where exposure — making oneself legible or visible — invites predation. This framework reshapes how individuals and groups must think about security, trust, and survival, particularly in an environment thick with scams, misinformation, and parasitic actors accelerated by the Internet.Immune function and intelligence function have fused in both biological and societal contexts. Davies draws a parallel between decentralized organisms like anthills and modern human society, suggesting that intelligence and immunity are inseparable functions in highly interconnected systems. This fusion means that detecting threats, maintaining identity, and deciding what to incorporate or reject is now an active, continuous cognitive and social process.Cryptographic tools are becoming essential for basic trust and survival. With the rise of scams that mimic legitimate authority figures and institutions, Davies highlights how cryptographic attestation — and eventually more sophisticated tools like zero-knowledge proofs — will become fundamental. Without cryptographically verifiable communication, distinguishing real demands from predatory scams may soon become impossible, especially as AI-generated deception grows more convincing.Institutions are hollowing out, but will not disappear entirely. Rather than a sudden collapse, Davies envisions a future where legacy institutions like universities, corporations, and governments persist as "zombie" entities — still exerting influence but increasingly irrelevant to new forms of social organization. Meanwhile, smaller, nimble "patchwork" tribes and digital-first associations will become more central to human coordination and identity.Modern universities have drifted far from their original purpose and structure. Tracing the history from medieval student guilds to Humboldt's 19th-century research universities, Davies notes that today's universities are heavily compromised by state agendas, mass democracy, and financialization. True inquiry and intellectual aloofness — once core to the ideal of the university — now require entirely new, post-institutional structures to be viable.Artificial intelligence amplifies both opportunity and epistemic risk. Davies warns that large language models (LLMs) mainly recombine existing information rather than generate truly novel insights. Moreover, they can be trapdoored or poisoned at the data level, introducing dangerous, invisible vulnerabilities. This creates a new kind of "Dark Forest" risk: users must assume that any received information may carry unseen threats or distortions.There is no longer a reliable central authority for epistemic trust. In a fragmented world where Wikipedia is compromised, traditional media is polarized, and even scientific institutions are politicized, Davies asserts that we must return to "epistemic hygiene." This means independently verifying knowledge where possible and treating all claims — even from AI — with skepticism. The burden of truth-validation increasingly falls on individuals and their trusted, cryptographically verifiable networks.

Harvard University is taking legal action after the Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in federal grants, citing failure to address antisemitism and comply with vague new rules about “merit-based” practices and “viewpoint diversity.”The panel discusses the implications for academic freedom, student activism, and how terms like antisemitism may be misused to silence dissent. Is this a crackdown on hate or a political power play? News SourceAP News by Michael Casey, April 14, 2025https://apnews.com/article/harvard-trump-administration-federal-cuts-antisemitism-0a1fb70a2c1055bda7c4c5a5c476e18dThe Non-Prophets, Episode 24.17.2 featuring Jimmy Jr., Rob, Tracy Wilbert and The Ejector SeatTrump Freezes $2.2B in Harvard Grants Over Campus Protests

On March 6, President Trump issued the executive order “Addressing Risk from Perkins Coie LLP,” essentially preventing the firm from doing business with the federal government, stripping its staff of security clearances. It was the first of several presidential orders aimed at law firms that represented clients and/or employed attorneys at odds with Trump.At the same time, Trump and members of his administration have voiced loud opposition to judges who rule against him and, in what many see as a weaponization of justice, have fired members of the Department of Justice without cause. Even the new Attorney General Pam Bondi is breaking with long held protocol by openly defending the administration, taking a partisan position when defending her decision not to investigate the Signal scandal of top national security officers sharing war plans via the public ap, saying: “If you want to talk about classified information, talk about what was in Hillary Clinton's home. Talk about the classified documents in Joe Biden's garage that Hunter Biden had access to.”Are the norms and practices that have maintained the rule of law in the United States straining under the pressure of the Trump administration?Stanford Law Professor David Sklansky, a criminal law expert, joins Pam Karlan for a look at the first 100 days of the Trump administration—and the unprecedented number of executive orders targeting rule of law norms. Sklansky, co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center who teaches and writes about policing, prosecution, criminal law, and the law of evidence, is the author, most recently of Criminal Justice in Divided America: Police, Punishment, and the Future of Our Democracy, was published earlier this year by Harvard University Press. Earlier he practiced labor law in Washington D.C. and served as a federal prosecutor in Los Angeles.Links:David Sklansky  >>> Stanford Law pageCriminal Justice in Divided America >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00:00) The Rule of Law and Executive Orders(00:15:01) Legal Profession's Response to Political Pressure(00:27:01) Impact on Universities and Academic Freedom(00:37:01) Redefining Pro Bono Work(00:44:42) The Importance of the Rule of Law

Hosts Renato Mariotti and Asha Rangappa dive into the escalating legal showdown between Harvard University and the Trump administration, a clash that raises critical questions about academic freedom and government overreach. Before diving in, make sure to subscribe to our Patreon for exclusive access to deeper insights and behind-the-scenes content: patreon.com/reallyamericanmedia. This episode unpacks the administration's controversial push to impose “ideological diversity” requirements on universities, with Harvard at the center of the storm. The hosts reveal how federal funding threats have been used as leverage to pressure the university into adopting policies that align with MAGA-friendly ideals—an effort both Renato and Asha argue undermines academic integrity and freedom. Harvard's response? A swift lawsuit challenging the administration's demands as unconstitutional, citing First Amendment protections against viewpoint discrimination. The stakes are high, as this case could set a precedent for how far the government can go in dictating the policies of educational institutions. The drama doesn't stop there. Trump's personal attacks on one of Harvard's attorneys via social media highlight his direct involvement in the fight, further underscoring the administration's strategy of using executive power to reshape American institutions. Renato and Asha explore the broader implications of this battle, emphasizing that Harvard's resistance is about more than one university—it's about safeguarding the academic freedom of all institutions. They warn that weaponizing federal funding as a tool for ideological enforcement could have far-reaching consequences, from stifling innovation to undermining public health initiatives. As more universities rally behind Harvard, signing letters of support, the hosts stress the importance of collective action in pushing back against governmental overreach. They remind listeners that protecting democratic principles requires vigilance and engagement from every corner of society. Don't miss this compelling episode, where Renato and Asha dissect the legal, social, and political stakes of this ongoing saga. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In January, President Trump renamed the "Gulf of Mexico" the "Gulf of America." The Associated Press refused to follow that lead, keeping "Gulf of Mexico" in its style guide. The White House responded by denying AP reporters access to some White House press events. The AP sued, and Judge McFadden of the District of Columbia recently issued an opinion siding with the AP. What are the First Amendment principles at play? Might this headline-grabbing fight have broader implications for the First Amendment or the separation of powers?Join us for a litigation update on this case. Featuring: Tyson Langhofer, Senior Counsel and Director of the Center for Academic Freedom at Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Casey Mattox, VP of Legal Strategy at Stand Together

Sumayyah Emeh-Edu (she/her) from Embedded Consulting and I recap the latest 5 Things (good vibes in DEI) in just 15 minutes. This week our conversation is about equality in aisle five, Harvard holding its ground, billion-dollar frontline brilliance—and more!Here are this week's good vibes:Love Locked In, Court Be Damned​Harvard to Trump: Not Your CampusColor Blindness? Read Between the LinesFifteen Percent and Going StrongFrontline Ideas, Billion-Dollar ImpactGood Vibes to Go: Bernadette's GVTG: I've recently re-watched Wanda Sykes' last two Netflix standup specials. She will make you laugh and make you think….my favorite kind of comic. Watch and enjoy!Sumayyah's GVTG: Take care of yourself this Mental Health Awareness Month! Find joy, find connection, put the phone down. Look for the love.Read the Stories.Connect with Sumayyah Emeh-Edu.Subscribe to the 5 Things newsletter.Watch the show on YouTube. Join thousands of readers by subscribing to the 5 Things newsletter. Enjoy some good vibes in DEI every Saturday morning. https://5thingsdei.com/

Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) have become integral components of Canadian science funding. In this episode, we explore Pierre Poilievre's plan to strip funding from research programs that incorporate so-called "woke" policies like EDI. We examine how EDI policies are currently embedded in major grants from NSERC, SSHRC, CIHR, and more, and discuss what could be at stake for Canada's research innovation if these changes move forward. Pierre Poilievre's proposal has sparked a broader debate within the Canadian academic and scientific communities. Many fear that removing EDI requirements could turn back progress made toward ensuring more inclusive and impactful research environments. We'll dive into what these policies actually achieve, why they were implemented, and the potential future of science in Canada. Follow a career in conservation: https://www.conservation-careers.com/online-training/ Use the code SUFB to get 33% off courses and the careers program.   Do you want to join my Ocean Community? Sign Up for Updates on the process: www.speakupforblue.com/oceanapp   Sign up for our Newsletter: http://www.speakupforblue.com/newsletter   Facebook Group: https://bit.ly/3NmYvsI Connect with Speak Up For Blue: Website: https://bit.ly/3fOF3Wf Instagram: https://bit.ly/3rIaJSG TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@speakupforblue Twitter: https://bit.ly/3rHZxpc YouTube: www.speakupforblue.com/youtube  

A dystopian reality has gripped America's colleges and universities: ICE agents are snatching and disappearing international students in broad daylight; student visas are being revoked en masse overnight; funding cuts and freezes are upending countless careers and our entire public research infrastructure; students are being expelled and faculty fired for speaking out against Israel's US-backed genocidal war on Gaza and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. An all-out assault on higher ed and the people who live, learn, and work there is being led by the federal government and aided by law enforcement, internet vigilantes, and even university administrators. Today's climate of repression recalls that of McCarthyism and the height of the anti-communist Red Scare in the 1950s, but leading scholars of McCarthyism and political repression say that the attacks on higher education, free speech, and political repression we're seeing today are “worse” and “much broader.” In this installment of The Real News Network podcast, TRNN Editor-in-Chief Maximillian Alvarez speaks with a panel of scholars about the Trump administration's authoritarian war on higher education in America, the historical roots of the attacks we're seeing play out today, and what lessons we can draw from history about how to fight it. Panelists include: Ellen Schrecker, a historian and author who has written extensively about McCarthyism and American higher education, and a member of the American Association of University Professors national committee on academic freedom and tenure. Schrecker is the author and co-editor of numerous books, including: The Right To Learn: Resisting the Right-Wing Attack on Academic Freedom; The Lost Promise: American Universities in the 1960s; No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities; and Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in AmericaDavid Palumbo-Liu, Louise Hewlett Nixon Professor in Comparative Literature at Stanford University, host of the podcast Speaking Out of Place, and author of several books, including: Speaking Out of Place: Getting Our Political Voices Back; The Deliverance of Others: Reading Literature in a Global Age; and Asian/American: Historical Crossings of a Racial FrontierAlan Wald, H. Chandler Davis Collegiate Professor Emeritus of English Literature and American Culture at the University of Michigan. Wald is an editor of Against the Current and Science & Society, he serves as a member of the academic council of Jewish Voice for Peace, and he is the author of a trilogy of books from the University of North Carolina Press: Exiles from a Future Time: The Forging of the Mid-Twentieth-Century Literary Left; Trinity of Passion: The Literary Left and the Antifascist Crusade; and American Night: The Literary Left in the Era of the Cold WarStudio Production: David HebdenAudio Post-Production: Jules TaylorHelp

Today on the show, Fareed speaks with former President of Columbia University Lee Bollinger about the Trump administration's attacks on universities and what America stands to lose in the rollback of academic freedom.    Then, author Michael Lewis joins the show to discuss his new book, “Who Is Government.” As DOGE moves to dismantle government agencies and paint federal workers as lazy, Lewis' book chronicles the untold and crucial work being done by America's civil servants.    GUESTS: Lee Bollinger, Michael Lewis  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Amid the ongoing feud between Harvard University and the Trump Administration over demands for the school to make extensive changes to its governance, admissions and hiring practices, the Trump Admin. has moved to revoke the university's tax-exempt status. The status designation allows many universities like Harvard to avoid paying federal income tax. The question is, does Trump have the authority to do that? Harvard University Professor Steven Pinker, a member of The Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard, is concerned about the ongoing trend of government involvement over academic policy changes and joined us to discuss!Listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the NEW iHeart Radio app and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!

Norman Finkelstein talks about Gaza, the attack on free speech, and Chuck Schumer's book 'Antisemitism In America: A Warning.' Whitney Webb talks about her latest investigation into Sean “Diddy” Combs. Ashley Bishop plays some tape she recorded at the Global Strike For Gaza protest in NYC where a pro-Israeli threw bleach and feces on the Norman Finkelstein is a political scientist, prolific author, and son of Holocaust survivors. He received his PhD from the Princeton University Politics Department in 1987. He is the author of many books that have been translated into 60 foreign editions, including THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY: Reflections on the exploitation of Jewish suffering, and GAZA: An inquest into its martyrdom, I'LL BURN THAT BRIDGE WHEN I GET TO IT! Heretical Thoughts on Identity Politics, Cancel Culture, and Academic Freedom. In the year 2020, Norman Finkelstein was named the fifth most influential political scientist in the world. Whitney Webb has been a professional writer, researcher and journalist since 2016. She has written for several websites and, from 2017 to 2020, was a staff writer and senior investigative reporter for Mint Press News. She currently writes for Unlimited Hangout. She is the author of the book One Nation Under Blackmail. Recently her work was referenced by Ian Carroll on the Joe Rogan Podcast. Follow Whitney on X https://x.com/_whitneywebb Ashley Bishop is a New York-based reporter and documentary filmmaker covering labor, climate, and social movements. ***Please support The Katie Halper Show *** For bonus content, exclusive interviews, to support independent media & to help make this program possible, please join us on Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/thekatiehalpershow Get your Katie Halper Show Merch here! https://katiehalper.myspreadshop.com/all Follow Katie on Twitter: https://x.com/kthalps Follow Katie on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/kthalps/

Max Blumenthal interview with Glenn Diesen on the Zionist war on academic freedom

Today my guest is Arnold Cantu, a licensed clinical social worker and psychotherapist with experience in school social work, private practice, and community mental health. What made Arnold drop out of his doctoral program despite his passion for academic and clinical research, even as he became a published author well ahead of his classmates?Our conversation explores the challenging dynamics Arnold faced as a doctoral student who didn't perfectly align with certain ideological expectations, despite his progressive research interests critiquing the biomedical model of mental health. With seven years of clinical experience before entering his program in 2021, Arnold anticipated some political slant but was surprised by the extent of ideological conformity enforced.What pressures do students face when they don't enthusiastically embrace every aspect of critical social justice ideology? How thin is the line between education and indoctrination? What happens when a student defines "anti-oppressive" using a dictionary definition rather than approved academic literature?Arnold shares how he found himself under scrutiny not for being confrontational in class, but simply for not demonstrating sufficient enthusiasm for certain frameworks. Despite being a Mexican-American clinician focused on improving mental health services for immigrant communities, his approach wasn't considered progressive enough.The situation escalated when Arnold shared a link about academic freedom in a class survey, prompting professors to call meetings to discuss his values and commitment to social justice. He eventually withdrew in 2024 after what he describes as "one of the lowest years of my life," finding much greater happiness returning to clinical work.We discuss the paradox Arnold observed between an allegedly "anti-oppressive" framework that created an oppressive academic environment and the challenges of intellectual diversity in social work education. Despite leaving his program, Arnold has continued his scholarly work, publishing books and articles critiquing the medical model of mental health.This conversation raises important questions about the future of social work education, the tension between truth-seeking and political activism in academia, and whether students with diverse perspectives can thrive in programs with increasingly rigid ideological expectations.Look for a future episode where Arnold and I will dive deeper into his critique of the medical model and how certain "progressive" approaches to mental health may paradoxically reinforce oppressive frameworks.Arnoldo Cantú, LCSW is a clinical social worker and psychotherapist with experience in school social work, private practice, and currently working in community mental health seeing children, adolescents, families, and adults. Cantú was born in Mexico and considers Texas home having grown up in the Rio Grande Valley, though currently resides in the beautiful city of Fort Collins located in northern Colorado. He is the lead editor of a trio of volumes in the Ethics International Press Critical Psychology and Critical Psychiatry Series titled Theoretical Alternatives to the Psychiatric Model of Mental Disorder Labeling, Practical Alternatives to the Psychiatric Model of Mental Illness, and Institutionalized Madness: The Interplay of Psychiatry and Society's Institutions. He's written critically not only about the idea of so-called mental disorder, but also the idea of race categories.Arnold's recent article: A Case for Intellectual Humility, Tolerance, and Humanism: Perspectives from an Ethnically “Minoritized” Graduate StudentArnold's ResearchGate profileSpecial Issue "Beyond Ideological Mandates: Critical Reflections on Anti-Racist and Anti-Oppressive Social Work Education"ROGD REPAIR Course + Community gives concerned parents instant access to over 120 lessons providing the psychological insights and communication tools you need to get through to your kid. Use code SOMETHERAPIST2025 to take 50% off your first month.TALK TO ME: book a meeting.PRODUCTION: Looking for your own podcast producer? Visit PodsByNick.com and mention my podcast for 20% off your initial services.SUPPORT THE SHOW: subscribe, like, comment, & share or donate.ORGANIFI: Take 20% off Organifi with code SOMETHERAPIST.Watch NO WAY BACK: The Reality of Gender-Affirming Care. Use code SOMETHERAPIST to take 20% off your order.SHOW NOTES & transcript with help from SwellAI.MUSIC: Thanks to Joey Pecoraro for our song, “Half Awake,” used with gratitude & permission. ALL OTHER LINKS HERE. To support this show, please leave a rating & review on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Subscribe, like, comment & share via my YouTube channel. Or recommend this to a friend!Learn more about Do No Harm.Take $200 off your EightSleep Pod Pro Cover with code SOMETHERAPIST at EightSleep.com.Take 20% off all superfood beverages with code SOMETHERAPIST at Organifi.Check out my shop for book recommendations + wellness products.Show notes & transcript provided with the help of SwellAI.Special thanks to Joey Pecoraro for our theme song, “Half Awake,” used with gratitude and permission.Watch NO WAY BACK: The Reality of Gender-Affirming Care (our medical ethics documentary, formerly known as Affirmation Generation). Stream the film or purchase a DVD. Use code SOMETHERAPIST to take 20% off your order. Follow us on X @2022affirmation or Instagram at @affirmationgeneration.Have a question for me? Looking to go deeper and discuss these ideas with other listeners? Join my Locals community! Members get to ask questions I will respond to in exclusive, members-only livestreams, post questions for upcoming gues...

In the 6 AM Hour: Larry O’Connor and Patrice Onwuka discussed: WMAL GUEST: 6:05 AM - INTERVIEW - SEAN KENNEDY - President of Virginians 4 Safe Communities – discussed top MS-13 Leader Arrested by FBI SOCIAL MEDIA: https://x.com/VA4SafeComm Top MS-13 leader arrested in Dale City, Virginia after months of surveillance, FBI says Walz Urges Democrats to Double Down on DEI and Immigration / X "Tim Walz: "We got ourselves into this mess because we did NOT embrace immigrants, wokeness, and DEI" WMAL GUESTS: 6:35 AM - INTERVIEW - COLT BLACK - Frederick County School Board MemberINTERVIEW - TYSON LANGHOFER - Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel and director of the Center for Academic Freedom .Frederick County Board of Education member Colt Black's language at a January meeting did not constitute a federal Title IX violation, an independent investigation found .ADF attorneys send letter to MD school board demanding end to unconstitutional lawfare Where to find more about WMAL's morning show: Follow the Show Podcasts on Apple podcasts, Audible and Spotify. Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor, @Jgunlock, @patricepinkfile, and @heatherhunterdc. Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Show Website: https://www.wmal.com/oconnor-company/ How to listen live weekdays from 5 to 9 AM: https://www.wmal.com/listenlive/ Episode: Friday, March 28, 2025 / 6 AM Hour See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Following the Trump administration's decision to revoke $400 million in federal funding over Columbia University's failure to protect Jewish students, the university announced sweeping policy changes. Meanwhile, the U.S. moved to deport former Columbia student and pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, accusing him of concealing his ties to UNRWA and participating in antisemitic campus protests. Dr. Laura Shaw Frank, Director of AJC's Center for Education Advocacy, joins People of the Pod to discuss the delicate balance between combating antisemitism, safeguarding free speech, and ensuring campuses remain safe for all students. ___ Resources: Leaders for Tomorrow: AJC's Flagship Leadership Development Initiative for High School Students AJC Supports Action on Antisemitism, Warns Against Overly Broad Funding Cuts Guidance and Programs for Higher Education Spaces The State of Antisemitism in America 2024 Report  AJC Statement on ICE Proceeding Against Mahmoud Khalil Listen – AJC Podcasts: -The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. -People of the Pod:  Spat On and Silenced: 2 Jewish Students on Fighting Campus Hate Meet the MIT Scientists Fighting Academic Boycotts of Israel Will Ireland Finally Stop Paying Lip Service When it Comes to Combating Antisemitism? Held Hostage in Gaza: A Mother's Fight for Freedom and Justice Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with Laura Shaw Frank: Aaron Bregman: Hi, this is Aaron Bregman, AJC's Director of High School Affairs. If you're the parent of a Jewish high school student, you've probably asked yourself, "How can I help my teen feel proud and prepared to lead in today's world?" Well, that's exactly what AJC's Leaders for Tomorrow program, or LFT, is all about. LFT gives Jewish teens the tools to navigate challenging conversations and advocAte about antisemitism and Israel—whether in the classroom, online, or in their community spaces. Our monthly deep-dive sessions into the issues faced by Jews - both historically and today - become the place where LFT students find community, build confidence, and strengthen their Jewish identity. If your teen is ready to expand their understanding of what it means to be a Jewish leader — have them visit AJC.org/LFT to learn more. Let's give them the tools they need to step up, speak out, and lead with pride. Again, that's AJC.org/LFT.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Three federal agencies said this week that they welcomed the policy changes that Columbia University announced Friday, following the Trump administration's revocation of $400 million in federal funding. The government recalled the funding in response to the university's failure to enforce its own rules to protect Jewish students after the terror attacks of October 7, 2023. Masked protesters of the Israel Hamas War spewed antisemitic rhetoric, built encampments that blocked students from attending classes and, in some cases, took over classes.  Also this week, the government announced new charges against Mahmoud Khalil, an Algerian citizen and green card holder here in the United States, and a former Columbia University graduate student who was detained due to his activism on campus. International students on other campuses also have been detained in the weeks since. As a community that values academic freedom, as well as freedom of expression, and democracy, how do we balance those values with the importance of fighting antisemitism and making sure our campuses are safe for Jewish students?  With me to discuss this balancing act is Laura Shaw Frank, director of the AJC Center for Education Advocacy and director of AJC's Department of Contemporary Jewish Life. Laura, welcome to People of the Pod.  Laura Shaw Frank:   Thanks, Manya. Good to be with you.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   So let's start with the issue of Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University graduate student. He was detained due to his activism on campus. And we're learning from government this week that he reportedly did not disclose that he was a member of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNWRA) as a political officer.  And he was also part of Colombia's Apartheid Divest movement when he applied to become a permanent resident in 2024. He was taken into custody, though, in a very troubling way. And frankly, he was one of the few who didn't conceal his identity during the protests and encampments. He negotiated with the University. What is AJC's stance on this? Laura Shaw Frank:   Great question Manya, and it deserves a very, very careful and nuanced answer. So I want to start by saying that AJC, as it has always done, is striving enormously to remain the very nuanced and careful voice that we always have about every issue, and particularly about the issues that we're talking about here, which are so so fraught in a moment that is so so fraught. AJC issued a statement that we published on X and on our website that talked about the fact that we deplore so many of Mahmoud Khalil's views and actions. And at the same time, it is critically important that the government follow all rules of due process and protections of free expression that we have in our country. And I wanted to emphasize, while I am an attorney, my law degree is incredibly rusty, and I'm not going to pretend to know all the legal ins and outs here, but I do know this, that free speech does attach, even for non-citizens in this country. So we're trying to express a very careful position here. It is possible that Khalil needs to be deported. It is very possible. What has to happen, though, is a trial with due process that is open, transparent and legal. And once those factual findings are determined, if it is the case that Khalil has violated United States law, and has provided material support for terror, and I know the government is actually no longer relying on that particular statute, or has endangered US interests, I don't remember exactly the language that the statute has, but endangered US interests, then he can be deported.  But we want to make sure that even as we deplore so much of what he has stood for--he's been the spokesperson for Columbia University Apartheid Divest, which is sort of an umbrella organization for many, many other student organizations at Columbia, including Students for Justice in Palestine, which was banned from campus, and some other groups which have espoused terribly antisemitic and anti-Israel views and actions on campus. They have engaged in protest activity that has been at times violent and exclusionary of Jewish students.  There's a lot to be horrified by there. And even as we abhor all of that, we love America, we love due process, we love democracy, and we feel very fiercely that those norms have to be upheld, and we hope that the government will uphold them. We expressed that concern because of the circumstances of his detention, and we're watching the case closely. Manya Brachear Pashman:   We also have the government threatening to cancel about $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia. This is a separate matter, but those cuts could include funding for scholarship and research and law. Education and health care. You know, a number of students and scholars alike are very afraid that this could backfire, if indeed, this is done at other universities across the country, in the name of protecting Jewish students. That the backlash could actually hurt the Jewish community.  Do you think that there is some credence to that? And if so, how do we prevent that? Laura Shaw Frank:   It's a great question, so I want to stop for a second before I answer the question, and talk a little bit about the position AJC has taken with respect to the $400 million. We issued a statement, a letter to the government, to the task force, about the $400 million. Where we, again, expressed our enormous gratitude to the administration for shining a light on antisemitism and for taking it seriously. Which it needs to be taken incredibly seriously in this moment. And we fear that it has not been taken seriously enough until this moment, so we're very grateful that the administration is taking it seriously.  And at the same time, we expressed our concern about the $400 million dollars being withheld because of what that $400 million will fund. That $400 million is largely funding for research, scientific and medical research, and we know that in this moment, there is a great deal of research money that is being withheld in various places in this country from universities that is funding really critical research. Pediatric brain cancer, Parkinson's disease, COVID. Whatever it is, that research is incredibly important.  So we want to make sure that even as the government is doing the good work of shining a light on antisemitism and ensuring that our higher education institutions are not harboring and fostering atmospheres of antisemitism. We want to make sure that they are simultaneously not using a hatchet rather than a scalpel in order to attack the problem.  We are keenly aware that much of the most antisemitic discourse that occurs on campus among faculty is discourse that comes out of humanities departments and not generally out of science, research, medicine departments. And it feels wrong to perhaps be withholding the funds from those who are not the problem. Generally, humanities departments don't get hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from the federal government. The research that they do is of a different scale. It's less expensive. Frankly, they don't have to run labs, so the funding is really mostly in that medical and science realm.  So I wanted to just start by saying that, and would definitely encourage folks to take a look at the letter that AJC sent to the task force. With respect to your question about whether this is going to backfire against the Jewish community. It is definitely a concern that we've thought about at AJC. There have been many moments in Jewish history where Jews have become scapegoats for policies of governments, or policies in a society, or failures of a society. I'm thinking of two in this particular moment that are just popping into my head.  One of them was the Khmelnytsky massacres in 1648 and 49. I know that sounds like a long time ago, but feels kind of relevant. When Jews, who were representing the nobles in exchanges with peasants, collecting taxes, things of that nature, were attacked and murdered in tens of thousands. And Jews were really, you know, was there antisemitism involved? Absolutely. Were Jews being scapegoated for rage against nobles? Also, absolutely. So I'm thinking about that.  I'm also thinking about the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany in the 1920s and 30s, where this myth of the German population being stabbed in the back by the Jews who quote, unquote, made them lose World War I–which is, of course, obscene and ridiculous–led the way for Nazi ideology finding a foothold in German society. So I'm thinking of those moments when Jews became a scapegoat. And I'm keenly aware of how much our universities rely on research dollars to do their work, and also the anger that so many who are working in that space must be feeling in this moment. It does make me fearful to think that those who are working in the research and those who need the research, you know, people who are struggling with health issues, people who are relying on cutting edge research to help them, could say, No, this is all the Jews' fault. It's all because of them. They're causing the government to do this and that. You know, it feeds into that antisemitism trope of control. I do worry about the Jews becoming the target.  What should we do about that? I think it's very important for us to have the open lines of communication that we're grateful to have with government officials, with elected officials and appointed officials in the Administration and across the aisle in Congress, with Democratic and Republican elected officials. I think it's important for them to understand, at least, you know, from AJC's perspective, that we hope that as they continue to shine that very important spotlight on antisemitism, and continue to ensure that we hold our institutions of higher education to the standard which they must be held to, taking antisemitism very seriously and combating it with all of their power and strength. That at the same time, we want to make sure that the strategies that the government is using to address this issue are strategies that will truly address the problem. And we hope that our statements, our transparency about our stance, will help this country see the views of the Jewish community in this moment. That there are diverse views in the Jewish community, that we do care deeply about the success of higher education, about the success and the importance of research dollars, and that we also care deeply that the administration is taking antisemitism seriously. So really trying to hold that very special AJC nuance. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I know AJC offers an entire package of strategies to combat antisemitism in many different arenas, including university campuses. And I want to take a look at some of the changes that Columbia announced in response to the government's threats to cut funds, to restore those funds. They said that they would make it easier to report harassment and enable the provost to deal with disciplinary action against students who are involved in protests. These seem to reflect some of the strategies that AJC has shared, Yes? Laura Shaw Frank:   Yes, for sure. I want to say, before I respond, that there seems to be a bit of murkiness right now, as we are recording, regarding sort of where some of the some of the agreement stands. So I'm just going to just note that, that it could be that by the time we air this episode, things will be different. But AJC's strategy for higher education administrators, which could be found on our website, and you can probably link to that in the show notes too, calls for very clear codes of conduct. Calls for enforcement, clear enforcement of those codes of conduct.  We don't specifically say where discipline should be situated, because every university has a different kind of plan for how, how that should be situated. And I know that's an issue that appears to be ongoingly unclear between the government and Columbia right now, so I'm not going to say where that's landing. It's not clear to me where it's landing, yet.  But there's no question that the kinds of asks that the federal government or demands, really that the federal government has made of Columbia, are demands that are rooted in the same issues that we have highlighted on campus. So there's this issue of discipline. Not just codes of conduct, but also the enforcement of codes of conduct. We've seen very often, including at Columbia, that there are rules that are on the books, but they're not actually enforced in reality. And they're useless if they're not enforced in reality. So that's one thing that we have been very clear about in our plan.  We also have encouraged universities to think about faculty, to think about the role that faculty plays on a campus, and that's also been a part of the Columbia agreement with the federal government. Again, this is a little bit murky, still, but the federal government had asked for the Middle East and African Studies Department, maybe Asian Studies. I'm not sure exactly what the title of the department is to be put in receivership. That is a very extreme thing that can be done. Universities do it if a department is completely failing in whatever way. They could put it in receivership, give it over to somebody else to head.  And it seems, at least as of this moment, that what Columbia has done is appoint a new Vice President who is going to oversee studies in the Middle East and Jewish studies, but it's not really exactly receivership. So I'm not going to opine on what they've done, but what I will opine on is what AJC is asking campuses to do in this moment. We've alluded to it in our campus plan that we have up on the website, but we are going to shortly be issuing updated guidance specifically about how we think universities should be addressing the issue of faculty members who are creating an atmosphere that's making Jews feel harassed, or that they're advancing antisemitism. Our State of Antisemitism Report that was released about a month and a half ago showed that, I think it's 32% of students felt that their faculty members were advancing an antisemitic atmosphere or an atmosphere that was harassing of them.  And I want to be clear that obviously this is a question of feel, right? We ask the students, do you feel that way? And we know that feelings are not empirical data. Every person has their own set of feelings. And what some students might feel is antisemitic. Other students might say, no, no, that's not antisemitic. That's simply a different viewpoint. That's a perfectly legitimate viewpoint.  So with that caveat, I want to say that we're very concerned about that statistic, and we do think that it reflects a reality on campus, specifically on campuses like Columbia. And what we are asking universities to do at this moment is to think really carefully about how they're talking to faculty. How are they professionalizing their faculty?  Our Director of Academic Affairs, Dr. Sara Coodin, has been working a great deal on coming up with a plan of what we would like to ask universities to work on in this moment, to work on the summer when they have some downtime. How are they going to talk to their faculty, especially emerging faculty, TA's,graduate students and young, untenured faculty about what their responsibilities are. What are their responsibilities to have classrooms with multiple viewpoints?  What are their responsibilities to not treat their classrooms as activist spaces for their own political ideologies? What are their responsibilities to not require students to take actions that are political in nature. Such as, we're going to hold class in the encampment today, or I'm canceling class in order for students to go to protest. Those are not appropriate. They are not responsible actions on the part of faculty. They do not fall under the category of academic freedom, they're not responsible.  So academic freedom is a very wide ranging notion, and it's really important. I do want to emphasize very important. We do want faculty members to have academic freedom. They have to be able to pursue the research, the thinking that they do pursue without being curtailed, without being censored. And at the same time, faculty has that privilege, and they also do have responsibilities. And by the way, we're not the only ones who think that. There are national organizations, academic organizations, that have outlined the responsibilities of faculty.  So as we kind of look at this issue with Columbia, the issue of those departments that are the government has asked for receivership, and Columbia has appointed this vice president, the issue that we would like to sort of home in on is this issue of: what are we doing to ensure that we are creating campuses where faculty understand their role in pedagogy, their role in teaching, their role in upholding University spaces that are places of vibrant dialog and discourse–and not activism for the professor's particular viewpoints. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I'm curious, there's been a lot of talk about Columbia failing its Jewish students, and these measures, these threats from the government are really the government's way of trying to repair that. Trying to motivate Columbia to to fix that and serve its Jewish students. But I'm curious if it's not just the Jewish students that Columbia is failing by not protecting Jewish students. In what ways are–and not just Columbia, but–universities in general failing students in this moment, maybe even students including Mahmoud Khalil? Laura Shaw Frank:   I'm so glad you asked that question. I think it's such an important question. We look at universities, at the Center for Education Advocacy, and I think that so many Americans look at universities this way, as places where we are growing the next generation of citizens. Not even the next, they are citizens, many of them, some of them are foreign students and green card holders, et cetera. But we're raising the next generation of Americans, American leadership in our university and college spaces.  And we believe so firmly and so strongly that the ways that antisemitism plays out on campus are so intertwined with general notions of anti-democracy and anti-civics. And that solving antisemitism actually involves solving for these anti-democratic tendencies on certain campuses. And so we do firmly believe that the universities are failing all students in this moment.  What we need as a society, as we become more and more polarized and more and more siloed, what we need universities to do is help us come together, is: help us think about, what are the facts that we can discuss together, debate together, even as we have different interpretations of those facts. Even if we have different opinions about where those facts should lead us. How do we discuss the issues that are so problematic in our society? How will we be able to solve them?  And that, for antisemitism, plays out in a way about, you know, Jewish students are a tiny minority, right, even on campuses where there's a large Jewish population. What does large look like? 10, 15%? On some campuses it's more than that, but it's still quite small. And Jews are two and a half percent of American society. So Jews are a minority. It's very important for us to be in spaces where different views will be included, where different opinions are on the table.  Additionally, of course, discourse about Israel is so important to Jews, and we know from the Pew study and from our AJC studies that four in five Jews, over 80% of Jews, see Israel as important to their Jewish identity. So discourse on campus about Israel that ends up being so one-sided, so ignoring of facts and realities, and so demonizing of Israel and of Zionists and of the Jewish people, that's not healthy for Jews and fosters enormous antisemitism, and it simultaneously is so detrimental, and dangerous for all of us.  It's not solely discourse about Israel that is at issue. It is any time that a university is sending faculty members into the classroom who are all of the same mindset, who all have the same attitude, who are all teaching the same views and not preparing young people with the ability to debate and come up with their own views. Fact-based views, not imaginary views, fact-based views. That's incredibly, incredibly important.  One other piece that I want to mention, that I think when campuses fail to enforce their rules, why they're damaging not just Jewish students, but all students. When you think about a campus that has their library taken over by protesters, or their classrooms taken over by protesters, or the dining hall being blocked by protesters. That's not just preventing Jewish students from accessing those university facilities. It's preventing all students.  Students are on campus to learn, whether they're in a community college, a state university, a small liberal arts college, a private university, whatever it is, they are there to learn. They are paying tuition, in many cases, tens of thousands of dollars, close to $100,000 in tuition in some places, to learn and for these students to have the ability to take away other students' ability to learn is a way that the university is failing all of its students. That has to be stopped. Manya Brachear Pashman:   You talked about using classroom space, using library space, as you know, co-opting it for protest purposes or to express particular points of view. But what about the quad? What about the open space on campus? You know, there appears to be, again, it's still murky, but there appears to be an outright ban now on protests on Columbia's campus. Is that a reasonable approach or should campuses have some sort of vehicle for demonstration and expression, somewhere on its property? Laura Shaw Frank:   Absolutely, campuses should allow for protest. Protest is a right in America. Now, private campuses do not have to give students the right to protest, because that's private space. The government isn't allowed to infringe on protests, so public universities would not be able to do that. But most private campuses have adopted the First Amendment and hold by it on their campuses, including Columbia.  It is critically important that students, faculty members, anyone in American society, be permitted to peacefully protest. What can be done in order to keep campuses functional, and what many campuses have done, is employ time, place, and manner restrictions. That's a phrase that probably a lot of our listeners have heard before.  You're not allowed to curtail speech–which, protest is, of course, a form of speech–you're not allowed to curtail speech based on a particular viewpoint. You can't say, these people are allowed to talk, but those people, because we don't like their opinion, they're not allowed to talk. But what you can do is have something that is viewpoint-neutral. So time, place and manner restrictions are viewpoint neutral. What does that mean?  It means that you can say, on a campus, you're allowed to protest, but it's only between 12 and 1pm on the south quad with no megaphones, right? That's time, place, manner. I believe, and I think we all at AJC believe, that protests should be allowed to happen, and that good, solid time, place, and manner restrictions should be put into place to ensure that those protests are not going to prevent, as we just talked about, students from accessing the resources on campus they need to access, from learning in classrooms. There was a protest at Columbia that took place in a classroom, which was horrifying. I have to tell you that even the most left wing anti-Israel professors tweeted, posted on X against what those students did.  So campuses can create those time, place and manner restrictions and enforce them. And that way, they're permitting free speech. And this is what the Supreme Court has held again and again. And at the same time, prevented protesters from kind of destroying campus, from tearing it all down. And I think that that's really the way to go. Some campuses, by the way, have created spaces, special spaces for protest, like, if you're going to protest, you have to do it in the protest quarter, whatever it is, and I think that's a really good idea.  I'm an alum of Columbia, so I know how small Columbia's campus is. That might not work on Columbia's campus, but certainly time, place, and manner restrictions are critical, critical to campus safety and peace in this moment, and critical to protect the rights of all students, including Jewish students. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And on the topic of protests, as I was reading up on the latest developments, I saw a student quoted, she was quoted saying, ‘It's essentially going to ban any protest that it thinks is antisemitic slash pro-Palestine. I guess we're mixing up those words now.'  And I cringed, and I thought, No, we're not. And what are universities doing to educate their students on that difference? Or is that still missing from the equation? Laura Shaw Frank:   So I actually want to start, if I may, not in universities, but in K-12 schools. The Center for Education Advocacy works with people across the education spectrum, starting in kindergarten and going all the way through graduate school. And I think that's so important, because one of the things we hear from the many university presidents that we are working with in this moment is: we can't fix it.  We are asking our K-12 schools to engage in responsible education about the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and we have particular curricular providers that we recommend for them to use in this moment, I want to say that they are terrified to do that, and I understand why they're terrified to do that. Everyone is worried that the minute they open their mouth, they're going to be attacked by some person or another, some group or another.  And I get that. And I also believe, as do the presidents of these universities believe, that we cannot send students to campus when this issue is such a front burner issue. We cannot send students to campus with no ability to deal with it, with no framework of understanding, with no understanding of the way social media is playing with all of us. That education has to take place in K-12 spaces. So I wanted to say that first.  And now I'll talk about campus. Universities are not yet there at all, at all, at all, with talking about these issues in a nuanced and careful and intelligent way. We can never be in a position where we are conflating antisemitism and pro-Palestinian. That is simply ridiculous. One can be a very proud Zionist and be pro-Palestinian, in the sense of wanting Palestinians to have self determination, wanting them to be free, to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  AJC has long, long been on the books supporting a two-state solution, which I believe is pro-Palestinian in nature. Even as we have very few people who are also in the Middle East who are pro two-state solution in this moment. And I understand that.  Education of students to be able to think and act and speak responsibly in this moment means helping students understand what the differences are between being pro-Palestinian and being antisemitic. I'm thinking about phrases like ‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,' which lands on Jewish ears, as we know from research that's been done at the University of Chicago, lands on the majority of Jewish ears as genocidal in nature.  I'm thinking about phrases like 'globalize the Intifada,' which also lands on Jewish ears in a very particular way is targeting them, us, and education needs to take place to help students understand the way certain phrases the way certain language lands with Jews and why it lands that way, and how antisemitism plays out in society, and at the same time, education has to take place so students understand the conflict that's going on in the Middle East.  They might think about having debates between different professors, faculty members, students, that are open to the public, open to all, students that present this nuanced and careful view, that help people think through this issue in a careful and educated way. I also think that universities should probably engage in perhaps requiring a class. And I know some universities have started to do this. Stanford University has started to do this, and others as well, requiring a class about responsible speech.  And what I mean by that is: free speech is a right. You don't have to be responsible about it. You can be irresponsible. It's a right. What does it mean to understand the impact of your words?  How do we use speech to bring people together? How do we use speech to build bridges instead of tear people apart? So I think those are two ways that universities could look at this moment in terms of education. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Anything I haven't asked you, Laura, that you think needs to be addressed in this murky moment? Laura Shaw Frank:   I hope that our listeners and everyone who's following the stories on campus right now can take a breath and think carefully and in a nuanced way about what's going on and how they're going to speak about what's going on. I hope that people can see that we can hold two truths, that the government is shining a necessary light on antisemitism, at the same time as universities are very concerned, as are we about some of the ways that light is being shined, or some of the particular strategies the government is using.  It is so important in this moment where polarization is the root of so many of our problems, for us not to further polarize the conversation, but instead to think about the ways to speak productively, to speak in a forward thinking way, to speak in a way that's going to bring people together toward the solution for our universities and not further tear us all apart. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Thank you so much for this conversation, Laura, it is one that I have been wanting to have for a while, and I think that you are exactly the right person to have it with. So thank you for just really breaking it down for us.  Laura Shaw Frank:   Thank you so much, Manya.

What happens when the government turns the law into a weapon? In these first few months of the second Trump administration human rights advocates, legal scholars, and university leaders are warning of a political landscape where funding is slashed, free speech is chilled, and legal institutions are bent to serve those in power. From defunding human rights initiatives to threatening universities and using the justice system for political retribution, many say the future of democracy is on the line.In this episode, we explore the growing fear—and defiance—among those on the frontlines. Can universities withstand political pressure? Will the rule of law hold against efforts to consolidate power? What does the future of human rights look like in this new environment, and can it adapt, change and survive?

What does it mean for a university to become a battleground against deep-seated prejudices and historical tensions? In today's episode, we dive into these challenging questions with our distinguished guest, Cary Nelson, a celebrated scholar and ardent advocate for academic freedom.Nelson shares his insights on the intersection of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism in academia, a topic explored in his new book, "Mindless: What Happened to Universities?" The conversation examines how the lines between critique of Israel and hostility towards Jewish students blur, becoming toxic and divisive forces across campuses, from historical shifts that turned post-1948 anti-Zionism into a rejection of Israel's existence to the phenomenon of hatred and the campus protests that undermine foundational academic values. Nelson calls for reclaiming the core purpose of academia as a community of imperfect learners where dialogue and understanding prevail. In This Episode:Historical context of anti-Zionism and its transformation into anti-SemitismThe unique pressures faced by Jewish students on campusesThe role of social media in spreading campus protestsDistinctions between psychological and intellectual safety in AcademiaThe undermining of the university's role as a space for diverse perspectives About Cary:Cary Nelson is Jubilee Professor of Liberal Arts & Sciences Emeritus at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and an affiliated faculty member at the University of Haifa. He holds an honorary doctorate from Ben Gurion University of the Negev. Over his distinguished career, Nelson has authored or edited 36 books and published over 400 essays, focusing on modern poetry, critical theory, the politics of higher education, and issues related to antisemitism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. From 2006 to 2012, he served as president of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), advocating for academic freedom and shared governance. Nelson's latest work, “Mindless: What Happened to Universities?”, published on March 6, 2025, examines how universities have deviated from their commitment to shared intellectual principles, leading to environments where extremism and intolerance can flourish. Follow Heterodox Academy on:Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Fax5DyFacebook: https://bit.ly/3PMYxfwLinkedIn: https://bit.ly/48IYeuJInstagram: https://bit.ly/46HKfUgSubstack: https://bit.ly/48IhjNF

Skyrocketing costs of attendance, declining enrollment, the advent of artificial intelligence, campus debates about free speech, and a crackdown on diversity initiatives: Today's universities are in a pickle. Adding to this pickle are President Trump's threats and actions on slashing research funding — the financial lifeline of modern universities. Last month, the Chronicle of Higher Education highlighted a new survey of a diverse group of university presidents who were asked if they “believe the Trump Administration is at war with higher education” — and 94% answered they strongly agree.Luigi and Bethany speak to one academic leader with deep experience at the heart of these debates: Nicholas Dirks, former Chancellor of UC Berkeley (2013-2017) and author of the book, "City of Intellect: The Uses and Abuses of the University." Together, the three of them discuss which idea of the university is still valid in the 21st century, how fundraising changed the governance of higher education, and how universities might navigate the challenges of Trump's second administration.Revisit our previous episodes:Universities and Politics: Should They Mix? with Hanna GrayThe Economics of Student Protests

Wednesday, February 19th, 2025Today, another line prosecutor has resigned from the DoJ in protest to being asked to open a grand jury investigation into an Inflation Reduction Act contract; nearly 1000 career prosecutors including Jack Smith sign a letter in admiration of the prosecutors that have acted courageously in the face of the Trump regime; Judge Reyes holds a hearing on transgender people in the military; New York Governor Kathy Hochul met with members of City Hall to discuss the removal of Mayor Eric Adams; a top social security officer has resigned over a clash with Musk's access to private data; Trump's regime petitions the Supreme Court to allow the firing of Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger; a quarter of US shoppers have dumped their favorite stores over DEI policy; after MAGA censorship - Santa Rosa students write their own play and take the gold; the Trump regime is making it more dangerous for women in the workplace; the DHS is preparing to fire hundreds of senior leaders this week who are seen as disloyal to Donald Trump; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Thank You Helix Sleep27% Off Sitewide + 2 Free Dream Pillows + a Free Bedding Bundle with any Luxe or Elite Mattress Order when you go to HelixSleep.com/dailybeans.Stories:Hochul Meeting on Eric Adams's Future Plunges Him Deeper Into Crisis | The New York TimesJudge won't block Musk and DOGE from accessing data, making cuts at 7 federal agencies - Melissa Quinn |  CBS NewsA quarter of US shoppers have dumped favorite stores over political stances - Lauren Aratani | The GuardianDepartment of Homeland Security preparing to fire hundreds of senior leaders this week - Julia Ainsley | NBC NewsTop Social Security official exits after clash with Musk's DOGE over data - Lisa Rein| The Washington PostAfter Censorship, Santa Rosa Students Write Their Own Play — and Take the Gold - Gabe Meline | KQED Good Trouble:Call/Contact Governor Kathy Hochul and encourage her to remove Eric Adams.Federal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Check out muellershewrote.com for my interview with a systems security expert about the massive breach at opm.gov caused by Elon MuskHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/From The Good NewsContra dance - WikipediaImmigration rules: Sheriffs across North Carolina working to implement new ICE cooperation law - ABC11 Raleigh-DurhamReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewroteDana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

I discuss RFK Jr.'s confirmation as the US Secretary of Health and Human Services; recent layoffs at the CDC and NIH; and some comments by Harold Varmus in criticism of Jay Bhattacharya.