This is a smart piece by Daniel Drezner on how Daniel Diermeier and Vanderbilt University’s political accommodation to the Trump era has ended up – even if popular with donors and a subset of parents – leading to bizarre and unworkable understandings of academic freedom. It seems like Vandy has decided Trumpism is the new normal and the only appropriate response is to fully accept its critique of higher ed (as opposed to acknowledging serious problems, but not entirely giving in).
If Trump’s approach to higher ed becomes hegemonic, then this will be justified as a clever tacking to the wind to aid Vanderbilt’s mission to move up the rankings; if instead it fragments and falters (perhaps in the face of a midterm wave or the 2028 election), then it will look like a craven miscalculation.
The post quotes a piece by Inside Higher Ed‘s John K. Wilson:
“Absolutely none of these extraordinary measures are “standard academic processes.” They are clear attacks on shared governance and academic freedom, and they are direct violations of institutional neutrality because the administration is favoring one ideological side in academic disputes over another. . . . the Vanderbilt declaration goes far beyond what the Trump administration dreamed of proposing for colleges, imposing an extreme attack on academic freedom, shared governance, international scholars, and free speech that may be unmatched in the history of statements by American college boards.”
Drezner concludes:
“Rather than embracing more restrictions on such speech, it sure would be great if Vanderbilt Chancellor Daniel Diermeier — a political scientist no less [Paul note: Diermeier’s time at UChicago was not great on the “broad-minded initiatives for the greater good” front, as opposed to the “move fast and break things in order to quickly become a university president, regardless what messes end up being left behind for others to deal with” front]— read Levy’s article. Because as much as Vanderbilt’s trustees might lament the decline of trust in universities, this kind of overt interference into the daily lives of academic will simply rode that trust even further.”
Paul Staniland 