The sheer ignorance of the Trump cabinet members is breathtaking. Says secretary of education Linda McMahon: “Are they vetting students who are coming in from outside of the country to make sure they’re not activists? Are they vetting professors that they’re hiring to make sure that they’re not teaching ideologies?” She seems to think "activists" shouldn't be admitted as students. She evidently thinks "activist" is a bad thing, but I'm pretty sure she'd be fine with, say, a Hungarian student who was all in with Viktor Orbán.
Me, I'm glad that my history and political science professors "[taught] ideologies." I learned plenty about ideologies (including, of course, religions) that have had major impact on the world, including how to recognize their various strengths and weaknesses. Which is how I can see that Linda McMahon is in thrall to an ideology but doesn't realize it.
It's really not ignorance though IMO. Despite coming from the pro (fake) wresting world, McMahon's not stupid/ignorant.
What she's illustrating is something that has a long history in the US. McMahon, and many, if not most Trump supporters, simply believe they are the only "real" Americans, and any opinions/beliefs that confluct with theirs are illegitimate. Furthermore, they're *so* convinced of their own rectitude that anybody who holds beliefs/opinions that conflict with theirs *must* have been victims of "brainwashing" by enemies of the United States, capitalism and/or Judeo-Christianity.
Lastly, I kind of disagree with you about whether she'd necessarily be okay with a pro-Turkish government activist. If she's a surface-level thinker, she probably would be okay with it, but she shouldn't be.
IMO, one of the common threads among Trump supporters and many far right wingers in general is that they *don't* like to be questioned. I definitely disagree with pro-Turkish, pro-Russian, Iranian, etc. activists, but they're not all uninformed people who simply parrott whatever official line comes out of the leader's mouth that day. A minority of them do actually read and think critically. A person who reads and thinks critically is quite capable of eventually asking uncomfortable questions and becoming a critic.
Since his "special military operation" in Ukraine started going badly, pro-Russian accounts on Telegram have been one of the biggest thorns in Putin's backside. The people who run those accounts are definitely Russian nationalists and regime supporters disdainful of actual democracy and the rule of law, but they're not lemmings.
People like Trump, McMahon, Miller, Noem, Hegseth, etc. IMO really only want Americans who are willing to blindly go along with what they're told, and basically avoid/abdicate the responsibility to think critically, in favor of the "faith" that what they're being told is the truth, and what their leaders are doing is in their best interest.
You're absolutely right that this goes back a long, long way. Maybe summarize it as "my America is the only real America"? "Diversity" is a fairly recent buzzword, but they've always been against it.
The "melting pot," which I heard about ad nauseam growing up (but mostly not from my relatives, thank heavens), isn't about diversity. To many it seems to be about homogenizing immigrants, making them all the same as "us".
I don't think we actually disagree about the activist thing. The right-wingers aren't against activism -- they're against activism and activists that don't agree with them. Notice how Trump himself is pissed off at Putin for not agreeing with him. (Trump still doesn't get that Putin was calling the shots all along.)
Think back to the run-up to WW2. (Not to worry, I wasn't born yet either.) Communist parties all around the world toed the Comintern line and backed the Hitler-Stalin pact. When the Hitler-Stalin pact fell apart (and it didn't take a Cassandra to see that coming), all those Communist Party toadies had enough egg on their faces to feed the multitudes.
Trump will, unfortunately, win his fight against international students at Harvard, and American higher education in general, regardless of what the courts say.
Why would the brightest international students risk their critical college choice by rolling the dice on 4 years of chaos, uncertainty, and hostility from this criminal administration when they can select from prestigious universities, in welcoming and stable countries worldwide? They won't, of course, and all of the value that America has traditionally derived from being a magnet for global talent will quickly evaporate.
Everything Trump touches dies, and Americans stupidly and tragically let him re-gain power.
You are so right about brilliant international students passing on the US. Other countries that open their doors to welcome them will reap the rewards that we once were the direct beneficiaries of. With all of this cruelty, insanity and hate, I think we should return the Statue of Liberty back to France or at least drape Lady Liberty in black. Your evocation of the title of Rick Wilson's 2018 book "Everything Trump Touches Dies" is spot-on. How much more death and destruction at the hand of this madman are we willing to take?
Not really a mystery IMO. LBJ correctly defined this phenomenon 50 years ago: "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
It's in oligarchs like Musk, Thiel, Bezos and Zuck's interest to "keep hate alive." Fortunately for them, Zuck's creation of FB (and others subsequent creation of other social media platforms like Twitter) do a *great* job of generating, and perpetuating, negative emotions like anger, fear and hate.
One of the things that helped "save us" from Trump and some of his more awful minions (like Miller) intentions last time was their general incompetence. Unfortunately, IMO some of the people in the current Trump clown car seem to have learned from that, and IMO overall they're a little less incompetent in some ways now.
I obviously agree that His Orangeness's tweets and "Truth" Social posts aren't helping the attempted terrorizing/shakedown of Harvard, but IMO that's not new. Except among his hardcore base, I don't think Lord Cheeto's actually helped himself with anything he's *ever* said or posted since he began Making America Miserable in 2015.
The reason I think they're less incompetent, on some issues, now is the lawyers and other minions have gotten much better at playing shell games and using procedural tactics. For example, when they were prevented from using DHS assets to illegally deport people, Miller and Noem simply enlisted Hegseth and used DOD aircraft to do it. That's why we've currently got detainees at a US Navy base in Djibouti (which neither Djibouti's government or the US Navy's happy about) and may end up housing detainees on other military bases too.
Furthermore, yesterday, DOJ attempted to get another 30-day delay in the Abrego Garcia case. After that last minute request went over like a lead balloon, DOJ filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, because Garcia's not in the US!
Round and round we go, despite this "administration" already having been smacked down by everybody except Alito and Thomas. It's nearly June, and not only are we IMO not really that much closer to even getting Garcia out of the prison he was sent to after CECOT, and returned to his family in Maryland, yesterday Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-MD) was denied access to him.
As I believe HCR wrote in her Substack today, Trump's always been known to use whatever delaying tactics are available to prevent something from going against him in a meaningful way. We've (sadly) got around 1,300 more days of this dystopian clown show to go. Since "shock and awe" and flooding the zone haven't quelled the discontent with Trump, his minions and enablers, IMO it looks like they're shifting into a "delaying action" designed to make more Americans simply throw up their hands and give up out of sheer emotional, mental and physical exhaustion.
I do suspect that the increased competence, i.e., ability and willingness to manipulate the system, is mostly coming from behind the scenes: Miller, Vought, and the rest of them. Left to their own devices, the cabinet appointees tend to make fools of themselves.
Liz, before I saw your piece, I was really puzzled about something that might be related. The FBI recently made a point of announcing that it was opening its own investigation targeting whoever was responsible for the so-called "leak" to the American people of SCOTUS's draft Dobbs opinion. I guess it makes sense to somebody if they think they can blame a Harvard alum. But the investigation makes no sense legally (even aside from the obvious fact that the disclosure couldn't be a crime).
The FBI treating this as criminal (and even SCOTUS investigating it internally) smacks of something that (hundreds of years ago) was a privilege of nobility that (for the most part) died out in America, i.e., so-called "legislative privilege."
In Britain, Parliament was the absolute sovereign (and its upper house was limited to the nobility). So Parliament could make criminal (and it did punish as a crime) public revelations of Parliamentary discussions. Such criminal law at least was actually supported by the (unwritten) British constitution, which included the English Bill of Rights of 1689. That Bill of Rights (as Madison properly emphasized in 1789 discussions about our Bill of Rights) utterly failed to protect the freedom of speech of the people. It protected only the speech of Parliament (as the sovereign in Britain): “the Freedom of Speech, and Debates or Proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parliament.”
Parliament was the sovereign, and it could not be questioned by anyone outside Parliament. So Parliament could punish leakers. In America, our Constitution says and means exactly the opposite. Our Constitution was created by We the People, which (every SCOTUS justice knows) established that the people were sovereign over our public servants in federal government. Our Constitution even emphasized that state and federal governments were barred from granting any "Title of Nobility."
As Congressman James Madison expressly emphasized (when he presented to Congress his proposed version of our Bill of Rights on June 8, 1789), “all power” was “originally vested in, and consequently derived from the people,” so our First Amendment regarding speech, press and assembly necessarily merely “assert[ed] those rights which are exercised by the people in forming and establishing a plan of government,” i.e., in writing, ratifying and amending our Constitution.
Our Constitution does say that our directly-elected representatives in Congress “shall not be questioned in any other Place” for “any Speech or Debate in either House.” U.S. Const. Art. I, §6. But that means they cannot be questioned by the other branches. Members of Congress certainly can be (and are) questioned and held accountable by the people. That's the point of politicians campaigning and citizens voting. This privilege granted (by the people) in our Constitution was merely a part of the power and privilege of the people, themselves.
In America, the people are sovereign, so no federal official can justify retaliating against (or even investigating) anyone who allowed the people to see how our public servants (six SCOTUS justices) were conspiring to rob people of rights that our Constitution secured.
Don't take my word (or Madison's) for all this, take the word of SCOTUS (and at least three current justices). In Citizens United (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205), the majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito.
SCOTUS emphasized that in our “republic” clearly “the people are sovereign.” SCOTUS emphasized that our powers as sovereigns necessarily included “the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices” about our public servants and about public issues. That “ability” is “essential.” “Political speech” is “indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy” by citizens who are sovereign. “Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of” current or potential public servants (including SCOTUS justices) “are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution.”
“Speech” clearly and irrefutably “is an essential mechanism of democracy” as a “means to hold officials accountable to the people.” “The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information” is essential “to enlightened self-government” (self-government implies sovereignty) and it is “a necessary means to protect it” (our self-government and our sovereignty).
None of them could come close to getting into Harvard, as in light years away. I read somewhere that Harvard rejected Barron. That's gotta hurt. They are all victims of the "education" system they would impose on others.
Donald Trump: University of Pennsylvania, another Ivy League school.
James Nolan, a former admissions, acknowledged that Fred Trump Jr. contacted him to help his brother get into Wharton.
Mary Trump, Donald Trump's niece, alleged in her book that he paid someone to take the SAT exam for him.
Kristi Noem: University of South Dakota, and finished her coursework online. (Obviously).
I’m sure the list goes on and on.
Of note: 35% of Trump's Cabinet graduated from "elite" institutions, where previous administrations ranged between 52% and 60%. (Mind you, I went to a state university and got a great education, but I still imagine that Ivy League schools attract brilliant professors).
Poor Donald—just can’t help himself! Not only does he broadcast his dislike for people of color, women, critics - Americans, in other words - but also his next faltering steps. Not Mussolini … Jack Oakey’s version.
I would also (perhaps unnecessarily) point out to the readers here that Nazi Germany assaulted their own universities and thoroughly brought them under control in the 1930s
.For those who would like the details here is an AIs summary:
~~~~~~~~~
"Hstorical records extensively document systematic Nazi efforts to control German universities in the 1930s, led by both Hitler and Goebbels working through various party organizations.
The process began almost immediately after the Nazis came to power in 1933. The regime implemented the "Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service" in April 1933, which removed Jewish professors and those deemed politically unreliable from university positions. This purged approximately 1,200 academics from German universities.
Goebbels, as Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, played a central role in coordinating ideological control over higher education. His ministry worked closely with the Reich Education Ministry (under Bernhard Rust) to ensure universities served Nazi ideological goals. They established new curricula emphasizing "German science," racial theory, and Nazi political doctrine while suppressing or eliminating fields deemed incompatible with Nazi ideology.
The Nazis also targeted student organizations, dissolving independent student groups and replacing them with the National Socialist German Students' League (NSDStB). Book burnings at universities in May 1933, orchestrated by student groups but encouraged by the regime, symbolically demonstrated this intellectual control.
University autonomy was systematically dismantled. The traditional system of academic self-governance was replaced with the "Führerprinzip" (leadership principle), placing Nazi-appointed rectors in absolute control. Faculty hiring, curriculum decisions, and research directions all became subject to ideological approval.
By the mid-1930s, German universities had been transformed from centers of independent scholarship into institutions serving Nazi racial and political ideology. This represented one of the most comprehensive attempts at university control in modern history, fundamentally altering German higher education and contributing to the broader intellectual devastation of the Nazi period."
~~~~~~~~~~~
Things have not gotten so bad here yet and I personally doubt they ever will since Trump is physically and mentally declining and his party will soon be exiled from power. It is interesting to see that authoritarian regimes mimic each others methods in dealing with academia.
From the same AI a summary of how the Soviet Union transformed itself universities from independence to servants of state power:
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Soviet Union implemented extensive control measures over universities during the 1930s, though they began earlier and had different ideological foundations than the Nazi efforts.
Soviet university control started in the 1920s but intensified significantly during Stalin's consolidation of power in the late 1920s and 1930s. The regime systematically purged faculty members deemed politically unreliable, particularly those from pre-revolutionary academic backgrounds or with alleged "bourgeois" sympathies. During the Great Purge (1936-1938), numerous university professors, administrators, and researchers were arrested, executed, or sent to labor camps.
The Soviet approach differed from Nazi Germany in several key ways. Rather than racial ideology, Soviet control centered on Marxist-Leninist doctrine and class struggle theory. Universities were required to emphasize Soviet political ideology, dialectical materialism, and the needs of socialist construction. Academic disciplines were restructured to align with Soviet priorities - fields like sociology and genetics faced severe restrictions when they conflicted with official doctrine.
The Communist Party maintained direct oversight through party cells within universities and required faculty to demonstrate ideological conformity. Research priorities were dictated by state planning, with emphasis on practical applications for industrialization and military needs rather than independent scholarly inquiry.
Student admissions were restructured to favor workers and peasants over traditional educated classes. The curriculum was standardized across the Soviet Union to ensure uniform ideological education.
Both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union transformed universities from centers of independent scholarship into instruments of state ideology, though their specific methods and ideological content differed. Both regimes understood that controlling higher education was crucial for shaping future generations and eliminating potential sources of intellectual opposition."
~~~~~~~~~~
I speculate the PRC used the Soviet model in dealing with their own university system. Up until the Trump administration and to a lesser degree in the McCarthy era, American universities were pretty much left to go their own way in curriculum matters.
One of America's strengths is its soft power. The flow of international students into American universities and back home again is a key component of of this type of power. Long ago, I was personally acquainted with.the case of a middle eastern student from a powerful family who after graduating from our school returned to his country and subsequently rising to a ministerial position in his country's government, sent younger-generation family members to our school. This is soft power at work. If we restrict or threaten that flow of students in any way, China will be more than happy to fill the gap.
While it would not be good for US Universities, it would be good for foreign students to leave the US. Being in such a tenuous situation is taking away too much brain power from the work that they need to do. If the US universities cannot figure out a hybrid situation where students can live abroad and attend classes over Zoom, preferably in their time zone, then they should release them and help them to transfer to universities in other countries. This is the Covid Generation. They are already mentally really fragile. This could increase suicides and put a lot of people over the edge. Also, ICE prisons are torture sites. I wrote this piece and think it continues to apply.
The sheer ignorance of the Trump cabinet members is breathtaking. Says secretary of education Linda McMahon: “Are they vetting students who are coming in from outside of the country to make sure they’re not activists? Are they vetting professors that they’re hiring to make sure that they’re not teaching ideologies?” She seems to think "activists" shouldn't be admitted as students. She evidently thinks "activist" is a bad thing, but I'm pretty sure she'd be fine with, say, a Hungarian student who was all in with Viktor Orbán.
Me, I'm glad that my history and political science professors "[taught] ideologies." I learned plenty about ideologies (including, of course, religions) that have had major impact on the world, including how to recognize their various strengths and weaknesses. Which is how I can see that Linda McMahon is in thrall to an ideology but doesn't realize it.
It's really not ignorance though IMO. Despite coming from the pro (fake) wresting world, McMahon's not stupid/ignorant.
What she's illustrating is something that has a long history in the US. McMahon, and many, if not most Trump supporters, simply believe they are the only "real" Americans, and any opinions/beliefs that confluct with theirs are illegitimate. Furthermore, they're *so* convinced of their own rectitude that anybody who holds beliefs/opinions that conflict with theirs *must* have been victims of "brainwashing" by enemies of the United States, capitalism and/or Judeo-Christianity.
Lastly, I kind of disagree with you about whether she'd necessarily be okay with a pro-Turkish government activist. If she's a surface-level thinker, she probably would be okay with it, but she shouldn't be.
IMO, one of the common threads among Trump supporters and many far right wingers in general is that they *don't* like to be questioned. I definitely disagree with pro-Turkish, pro-Russian, Iranian, etc. activists, but they're not all uninformed people who simply parrott whatever official line comes out of the leader's mouth that day. A minority of them do actually read and think critically. A person who reads and thinks critically is quite capable of eventually asking uncomfortable questions and becoming a critic.
Since his "special military operation" in Ukraine started going badly, pro-Russian accounts on Telegram have been one of the biggest thorns in Putin's backside. The people who run those accounts are definitely Russian nationalists and regime supporters disdainful of actual democracy and the rule of law, but they're not lemmings.
People like Trump, McMahon, Miller, Noem, Hegseth, etc. IMO really only want Americans who are willing to blindly go along with what they're told, and basically avoid/abdicate the responsibility to think critically, in favor of the "faith" that what they're being told is the truth, and what their leaders are doing is in their best interest.
You're absolutely right that this goes back a long, long way. Maybe summarize it as "my America is the only real America"? "Diversity" is a fairly recent buzzword, but they've always been against it.
The "melting pot," which I heard about ad nauseam growing up (but mostly not from my relatives, thank heavens), isn't about diversity. To many it seems to be about homogenizing immigrants, making them all the same as "us".
I don't think we actually disagree about the activist thing. The right-wingers aren't against activism -- they're against activism and activists that don't agree with them. Notice how Trump himself is pissed off at Putin for not agreeing with him. (Trump still doesn't get that Putin was calling the shots all along.)
Think back to the run-up to WW2. (Not to worry, I wasn't born yet either.) Communist parties all around the world toed the Comintern line and backed the Hitler-Stalin pact. When the Hitler-Stalin pact fell apart (and it didn't take a Cassandra to see that coming), all those Communist Party toadies had enough egg on their faces to feed the multitudes.
Trump will, unfortunately, win his fight against international students at Harvard, and American higher education in general, regardless of what the courts say.
Why would the brightest international students risk their critical college choice by rolling the dice on 4 years of chaos, uncertainty, and hostility from this criminal administration when they can select from prestigious universities, in welcoming and stable countries worldwide? They won't, of course, and all of the value that America has traditionally derived from being a magnet for global talent will quickly evaporate.
Everything Trump touches dies, and Americans stupidly and tragically let him re-gain power.
You are so right about brilliant international students passing on the US. Other countries that open their doors to welcome them will reap the rewards that we once were the direct beneficiaries of. With all of this cruelty, insanity and hate, I think we should return the Statue of Liberty back to France or at least drape Lady Liberty in black. Your evocation of the title of Rick Wilson's 2018 book "Everything Trump Touches Dies" is spot-on. How much more death and destruction at the hand of this madman are we willing to take?
“Why is there so much HATE?” Good question, Linda McMahon, good question.
Not really a mystery IMO. LBJ correctly defined this phenomenon 50 years ago: "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
It's in oligarchs like Musk, Thiel, Bezos and Zuck's interest to "keep hate alive." Fortunately for them, Zuck's creation of FB (and others subsequent creation of other social media platforms like Twitter) do a *great* job of generating, and perpetuating, negative emotions like anger, fear and hate.
One of the things that helped "save us" from Trump and some of his more awful minions (like Miller) intentions last time was their general incompetence. Unfortunately, IMO some of the people in the current Trump clown car seem to have learned from that, and IMO overall they're a little less incompetent in some ways now.
I obviously agree that His Orangeness's tweets and "Truth" Social posts aren't helping the attempted terrorizing/shakedown of Harvard, but IMO that's not new. Except among his hardcore base, I don't think Lord Cheeto's actually helped himself with anything he's *ever* said or posted since he began Making America Miserable in 2015.
The reason I think they're less incompetent, on some issues, now is the lawyers and other minions have gotten much better at playing shell games and using procedural tactics. For example, when they were prevented from using DHS assets to illegally deport people, Miller and Noem simply enlisted Hegseth and used DOD aircraft to do it. That's why we've currently got detainees at a US Navy base in Djibouti (which neither Djibouti's government or the US Navy's happy about) and may end up housing detainees on other military bases too.
Furthermore, yesterday, DOJ attempted to get another 30-day delay in the Abrego Garcia case. After that last minute request went over like a lead balloon, DOJ filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, because Garcia's not in the US!
Round and round we go, despite this "administration" already having been smacked down by everybody except Alito and Thomas. It's nearly June, and not only are we IMO not really that much closer to even getting Garcia out of the prison he was sent to after CECOT, and returned to his family in Maryland, yesterday Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-MD) was denied access to him.
As I believe HCR wrote in her Substack today, Trump's always been known to use whatever delaying tactics are available to prevent something from going against him in a meaningful way. We've (sadly) got around 1,300 more days of this dystopian clown show to go. Since "shock and awe" and flooding the zone haven't quelled the discontent with Trump, his minions and enablers, IMO it looks like they're shifting into a "delaying action" designed to make more Americans simply throw up their hands and give up out of sheer emotional, mental and physical exhaustion.
I do suspect that the increased competence, i.e., ability and willingness to manipulate the system, is mostly coming from behind the scenes: Miller, Vought, and the rest of them. Left to their own devices, the cabinet appointees tend to make fools of themselves.
Agree. They are definitely second- and third-raters.
Chris-- b
Great comment. My read exactly
I really wish McMahon would go back to pro wrestling.
Perhaps as a contestant?
Oh jeez. No, almost anyone on the current WWE roster would tear her apart. On the other hand, watching her take Twisted Bliss or Riptide -- naaah....
yes--scripted phony slams and moves all for noise and show, are right up her alley
Liz, before I saw your piece, I was really puzzled about something that might be related. The FBI recently made a point of announcing that it was opening its own investigation targeting whoever was responsible for the so-called "leak" to the American people of SCOTUS's draft Dobbs opinion. I guess it makes sense to somebody if they think they can blame a Harvard alum. But the investigation makes no sense legally (even aside from the obvious fact that the disclosure couldn't be a crime).
The FBI treating this as criminal (and even SCOTUS investigating it internally) smacks of something that (hundreds of years ago) was a privilege of nobility that (for the most part) died out in America, i.e., so-called "legislative privilege."
In Britain, Parliament was the absolute sovereign (and its upper house was limited to the nobility). So Parliament could make criminal (and it did punish as a crime) public revelations of Parliamentary discussions. Such criminal law at least was actually supported by the (unwritten) British constitution, which included the English Bill of Rights of 1689. That Bill of Rights (as Madison properly emphasized in 1789 discussions about our Bill of Rights) utterly failed to protect the freedom of speech of the people. It protected only the speech of Parliament (as the sovereign in Britain): “the Freedom of Speech, and Debates or Proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parliament.”
Parliament was the sovereign, and it could not be questioned by anyone outside Parliament. So Parliament could punish leakers. In America, our Constitution says and means exactly the opposite. Our Constitution was created by We the People, which (every SCOTUS justice knows) established that the people were sovereign over our public servants in federal government. Our Constitution even emphasized that state and federal governments were barred from granting any "Title of Nobility."
As Congressman James Madison expressly emphasized (when he presented to Congress his proposed version of our Bill of Rights on June 8, 1789), “all power” was “originally vested in, and consequently derived from the people,” so our First Amendment regarding speech, press and assembly necessarily merely “assert[ed] those rights which are exercised by the people in forming and establishing a plan of government,” i.e., in writing, ratifying and amending our Constitution.
Our Constitution does say that our directly-elected representatives in Congress “shall not be questioned in any other Place” for “any Speech or Debate in either House.” U.S. Const. Art. I, §6. But that means they cannot be questioned by the other branches. Members of Congress certainly can be (and are) questioned and held accountable by the people. That's the point of politicians campaigning and citizens voting. This privilege granted (by the people) in our Constitution was merely a part of the power and privilege of the people, themselves.
In America, the people are sovereign, so no federal official can justify retaliating against (or even investigating) anyone who allowed the people to see how our public servants (six SCOTUS justices) were conspiring to rob people of rights that our Constitution secured.
Don't take my word (or Madison's) for all this, take the word of SCOTUS (and at least three current justices). In Citizens United (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205), the majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito.
SCOTUS emphasized that in our “republic” clearly “the people are sovereign.” SCOTUS emphasized that our powers as sovereigns necessarily included “the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices” about our public servants and about public issues. That “ability” is “essential.” “Political speech” is “indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy” by citizens who are sovereign. “Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of” current or potential public servants (including SCOTUS justices) “are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution.”
“Speech” clearly and irrefutably “is an essential mechanism of democracy” as a “means to hold officials accountable to the people.” “The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information” is essential “to enlightened self-government” (self-government implies sovereignty) and it is “a necessary means to protect it” (our self-government and our sovereignty).
Well, of course! President “They Ain’t Jews If’n They Don’t Vote For Me” uses antisemitism as a “reason” for attacking Harvard.
None of them could come close to getting into Harvard, as in light years away. I read somewhere that Harvard rejected Barron. That's gotta hurt. They are all victims of the "education" system they would impose on others.
Such screaming hypocrisy …
Donald Trump: University of Pennsylvania, another Ivy League school.
James Nolan, a former admissions, acknowledged that Fred Trump Jr. contacted him to help his brother get into Wharton.
Mary Trump, Donald Trump's niece, alleged in her book that he paid someone to take the SAT exam for him.
Kristi Noem: University of South Dakota, and finished her coursework online. (Obviously).
I’m sure the list goes on and on.
Of note: 35% of Trump's Cabinet graduated from "elite" institutions, where previous administrations ranged between 52% and 60%. (Mind you, I went to a state university and got a great education, but I still imagine that Ivy League schools attract brilliant professors).
Poor Donald—just can’t help himself! Not only does he broadcast his dislike for people of color, women, critics - Americans, in other words - but also his next faltering steps. Not Mussolini … Jack Oakey’s version.
Thank you, Liz. Excellent analysis. Wall Street has a new term...TACO. Trump Always Chickens Out. Hang tough Harvard, fight back.
I would also (perhaps unnecessarily) point out to the readers here that Nazi Germany assaulted their own universities and thoroughly brought them under control in the 1930s
.For those who would like the details here is an AIs summary:
~~~~~~~~~
"Hstorical records extensively document systematic Nazi efforts to control German universities in the 1930s, led by both Hitler and Goebbels working through various party organizations.
The process began almost immediately after the Nazis came to power in 1933. The regime implemented the "Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service" in April 1933, which removed Jewish professors and those deemed politically unreliable from university positions. This purged approximately 1,200 academics from German universities.
Goebbels, as Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, played a central role in coordinating ideological control over higher education. His ministry worked closely with the Reich Education Ministry (under Bernhard Rust) to ensure universities served Nazi ideological goals. They established new curricula emphasizing "German science," racial theory, and Nazi political doctrine while suppressing or eliminating fields deemed incompatible with Nazi ideology.
The Nazis also targeted student organizations, dissolving independent student groups and replacing them with the National Socialist German Students' League (NSDStB). Book burnings at universities in May 1933, orchestrated by student groups but encouraged by the regime, symbolically demonstrated this intellectual control.
University autonomy was systematically dismantled. The traditional system of academic self-governance was replaced with the "Führerprinzip" (leadership principle), placing Nazi-appointed rectors in absolute control. Faculty hiring, curriculum decisions, and research directions all became subject to ideological approval.
By the mid-1930s, German universities had been transformed from centers of independent scholarship into institutions serving Nazi racial and political ideology. This represented one of the most comprehensive attempts at university control in modern history, fundamentally altering German higher education and contributing to the broader intellectual devastation of the Nazi period."
~~~~~~~~~~~
Things have not gotten so bad here yet and I personally doubt they ever will since Trump is physically and mentally declining and his party will soon be exiled from power. It is interesting to see that authoritarian regimes mimic each others methods in dealing with academia.
From the same AI a summary of how the Soviet Union transformed itself universities from independence to servants of state power:
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Soviet Union implemented extensive control measures over universities during the 1930s, though they began earlier and had different ideological foundations than the Nazi efforts.
Soviet university control started in the 1920s but intensified significantly during Stalin's consolidation of power in the late 1920s and 1930s. The regime systematically purged faculty members deemed politically unreliable, particularly those from pre-revolutionary academic backgrounds or with alleged "bourgeois" sympathies. During the Great Purge (1936-1938), numerous university professors, administrators, and researchers were arrested, executed, or sent to labor camps.
The Soviet approach differed from Nazi Germany in several key ways. Rather than racial ideology, Soviet control centered on Marxist-Leninist doctrine and class struggle theory. Universities were required to emphasize Soviet political ideology, dialectical materialism, and the needs of socialist construction. Academic disciplines were restructured to align with Soviet priorities - fields like sociology and genetics faced severe restrictions when they conflicted with official doctrine.
The Communist Party maintained direct oversight through party cells within universities and required faculty to demonstrate ideological conformity. Research priorities were dictated by state planning, with emphasis on practical applications for industrialization and military needs rather than independent scholarly inquiry.
Student admissions were restructured to favor workers and peasants over traditional educated classes. The curriculum was standardized across the Soviet Union to ensure uniform ideological education.
Both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union transformed universities from centers of independent scholarship into instruments of state ideology, though their specific methods and ideological content differed. Both regimes understood that controlling higher education was crucial for shaping future generations and eliminating potential sources of intellectual opposition."
~~~~~~~~~~
I speculate the PRC used the Soviet model in dealing with their own university system. Up until the Trump administration and to a lesser degree in the McCarthy era, American universities were pretty much left to go their own way in curriculum matters.
One of America's strengths is its soft power. The flow of international students into American universities and back home again is a key component of of this type of power. Long ago, I was personally acquainted with.the case of a middle eastern student from a powerful family who after graduating from our school returned to his country and subsequently rising to a ministerial position in his country's government, sent younger-generation family members to our school. This is soft power at work. If we restrict or threaten that flow of students in any way, China will be more than happy to fill the gap.
While it would not be good for US Universities, it would be good for foreign students to leave the US. Being in such a tenuous situation is taking away too much brain power from the work that they need to do. If the US universities cannot figure out a hybrid situation where students can live abroad and attend classes over Zoom, preferably in their time zone, then they should release them and help them to transfer to universities in other countries. This is the Covid Generation. They are already mentally really fragile. This could increase suicides and put a lot of people over the edge. Also, ICE prisons are torture sites. I wrote this piece and think it continues to apply.
https://lindaweide.substack.com/p/foreign-students-at-a-us-university?r=f0qfn
Stop Voting For the Republican Party !!!!