Article America's two-front war on science

[C C]

https://reason.com/2025/08/14/americas-t...on-science

EXCERPTS: There is currently a two-pronged attack on higher education, research, and scholarship in the United States. Activists inside universities have hijacked many administrative functions, and significant reform is needed to ensure free speech, open inquiry, and the integrity of scholarship. But the Trump administration has used this fact to launch what may be a more dangerous direct attack on university scientific and research infrastructures across the nation. We can't afford to lose either war if we are to protect the country's scientific integrity and productivity.

Harvard University epitomizes the quandary we now find ourselves in. [...] Students and researchers have alleged that Harvard has discriminated against Asian applicants, rigorously policed speech, and punished faculty whose research results didn't match preconceived notions [...] In addition, the university promoted staff based on identity rather than academic accomplishments, including those known to have plagiarized academic work, while discriminating against talented students and scholars on the grounds of their race or sex.

Harvard is by no means unique. [...] This behavior is seen in academia outside of universities as well. Prestigious scientific journals, such as Nature Human Behaviour, have indicated they will not publish scientific articles if they could cause offense or a sense of harm to certain groups. Physical Review, a major journal in my own field of physics, went so far as to publish a case study positing that the use of whiteboards in classrooms could be viewed as a remnant of white supremacy.

The situation has set back scientific and scholarly progress, and has undermined the credibility of many academic disciplines among the public.

At the same time, President Donald Trump has not only launched a frontal assault on Harvard but has also removed leading scientists from national advisory boards and federally supported research institutions, and declared war on universities and departments that don't bow to his political agenda. Perhaps most damaging of all, this administration is proposing to end support for most cutting-edge American research programs...

[...] The administration's attempts to paint all university faculty as woke are misguided. Many leading scientists and scholars have continued to push the boundaries of knowledge while either ignoring ongoing culture wars or avoiding administrative activists on their campuses. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is never a good idea, nor is schadenfreude worth risking the future of knowledge. The proper way to fight one form of intolerance is not to impose your own brand of intolerance.

This external war on science may be, at least in the near term, more destructive than the ongoing internal culture wars within universities... (MORE - details)

[Syne]

Maybe scientists should have taken a stand against the DEI and discrimination first, so the government wouldn't have to.

[Yazata]

So how does Lawrence Krauss suggest that we defeat the 'woke' domination of universities and of the science that happens under those universities' auspices? Something clearly needs to be done, but doing anything is likely to be described by Krauss as another attack on science. Hence his "two-front" idea, which is probably how it looks to him since he feels caught in the middle.

The thing is, the federal government's biggest hammer in these matter is funding. And they have used that hammer repeatedly in past decades. If universities failed to accord equal rights to African Americans, they were threatened with loss of funding. Then it was feminists. Most recently, the "transgender" craziness.

Now it's dissenting conservative voices, and the screaming has started.

It's true that cutting Harvard's research funding would cripple what once was America's foremost research university. Harvard most certainly wouldn't hold that status any longer if it lost all those research grants.

Obviously Harvard could avoid that fate simply by cooperating and by giving conservatives equal treatment. But they refuse, they vow to fight back. Hence any repurcussions that fall on their heads is at least partly their own doing. It's their choice.

Why is Harvard a research powerhouse? A lot of it is the university's long history and the list of prominent scholars that have worked there. But today it's largely a matter of all the big names on their faculty roster. And as Krauss argues, many of those faculty stars aren't woke ideologues. Particularly in the natural sciences, many of them are trying to avoid the culture wars and perform their scholarship in peace.

So what happens to them when/if Harvard's grant funding is cut?

An option that Lawrence Krauss doesn't mention is leaving Harvard and moving to a different research university. They could take their research grant and their doctoral students with them. Harvard would decline in reputation by losing a star, while the new university would rise. That's how it works every day in higher academia, the big names are like sports free-agents and they are always getting offers to move. It's nothing new. It happens all the time.

So if Harvard lost its eligibility for federal research funding, all the research at Harvard that's currently funded wouldn't just suddenly cease. Most of it would just move to different universities. Science might be inconvenienced but it wouldn't lose, in fact a shakeup of ingrown university faculties might even do science some good.

But Harvard would lose, bigtime. And I have to admit that I do feel a great deal of Schadenfreude at finally seeing it happen.

[Syne]

An option that Lawrence Krauss doesn't mention is leaving Harvard and moving to a different research university.

Yep, if you feel you have no power to change things, you can always vote with your feet.