Matthew T. Hora
Professor, Adult & Higher Education, Departments of Educational Policy Studies (School of Education) and Liberal Arts & Applied Studies (Division of Continuing Studies)
“From time to time instances will arise in which the society, or segments of it,
threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry. In such a crisis, it
becomes the obligation of the university as an institution to oppose such measures and
actively to defend its interests and its values.”
The Kalven Report on Institutional Neutrality, University of Chicago, 1967
In the Fall of 2024, UW-Madison adopted a position of institutional neutrality, arguing that public statements for or against major events or controversies are problematic and can unintentionally “chill” free expression, and thus will be issued “only in defined circumstances.”
On February 8, 2025, such a circumstance occurred, with the university issuing a statement against the Trump Administration’s proposal to cut the overhead rate for NIH grants from 55.5% to 15%. Such a move would eliminate $65 million of infrastructural support from UW-Madison’s world-renowned research programs, shutting labs studying cancer therapies and Alzheimer’s prevention, destroying the career pipeline for future scientists, and stifling growth in the region’s booming health care and biotechnology economy.
But the time has now come for the leadership of UW-Madison to speak out once more, this time in defense of Columbia University and of the core values behind the mission of higher education in the U.S. — academic freedom, non-discrimination, and free inquiry.
In New York City, we are witnessing a breathtaking assault on these values. The government came on campus to arrest student and permanent resident Mahmoud Khalil, initially for overstaying a visa but then for participating in protests against the Gaza war last year. They next slashed $400 million in grants and contracts without due process and demanded that three departments go into receivership, arguing that the university had insufficiently protected Jewish students during the protests. Finally, the administration demanded that services supporting historically marginalized students be eliminated — as they were seen as discriminatory DEI programs — if Columbia wanted Federal funding reinstated.
As the Princeton historian and UW-Madison alumni Joan Scott stated, “Even during the McCarthy period in the United States, this was not done.”
But so far, leadership from America’s top universities, including UW-Madison, have been silent. As two Harvard faculty recently charged, campus leaders have “crawled into a protective shell,” hoping to avoid the “coming assault.” But ducking our heads and hoping the Trump administration will not notice our university is not a winning strategy.
It’s clear that more pain is coming to U.S. higher education, as influential voices such as Vice President JD Vance have long argued that “universities in our country are dedicated to deceit and lies, not to the truth,” in large part because they support DEI. For Vance, the answer to this “leftist takeover” lies in the authoritarian leader Viktor Orban’s playbook of de-funding universities in Hungary so severely that they must choose “between survival or taking a much less biased approach to teaching.” Similarly, the architect of the anti-DEI movement, Chris Rufo, argues that a goal of the Trump administration should be to “put the university sector as a whole into a significant recession.”
These statements make it clear that the current attacks on Columbia, which are allegedly a response to the university’s failure to protect Jewish students, are not actually about antisemitism. Instead, as Dr. Marianne Hirsch of the Jewish Faculty Group at Columbia said, “it should be obvious to everyone that what is happening on this campus, is not about protecting Jews. [It] is an alibi for what’s actually at stake …strict control of speech, of protest, and of higher education at large.”
So what should UW-Madison do?
The first thing to do is to work with other universities and defend Columbia and U.S. higher education as a collective via an extensive public media campaign. As Harvard political scientists argued recently, if “America’s nearly 6,000 universities and colleges launch a campaign in defense of higher education,” it is likely we can galvanize public opinion and prevail.
Even working in solidarity with smaller collectives can be powerful — imagine the potency of a pro-higher education message issued by the Big 10 campuses or all of Wisconsin’s campuses including the Wisconsin Technical College System. Through billboards in rural areas, commercials aired during sporting events like March Madness, and op-eds in local newspapers, the argument for higher education must be quickly aired to a wide audience.
Second, as part of this media campaign universities must also introduce a counter-narrative to the lies being spread about higher education — such as allegations that we are “factories of Maoist cadres” led by far-left professors or that indirect costs “cross-subsidize leftist agendas.” Easily disproven falsehoods like this risk becoming perceived as true in the public arena if left unchallenged.
Third, UW-Madison and other campuses need to clearly and loudly defend the core principles of higher education that are currently under assault at Columbia University. In advancing such a defense of academic freedom, non-discrimination, and free inquiry, leaders need to define these principles for the American public and point out that compliance with the Trump administration’s policies – such as the purging of DEI-related language or placing departments under receivership in response to governmental directives - would violate these principles.
Finally, UW-Madison should articulate a new vision for U.S. higher education in the 21st century to rekindle the pride that most Americans have traditionally had for their local college or university. A new argument is needed to meet the current political and cultural moment, where the value proposition of higher education needs to clearly convey how universities like UW-Madison benefit everyone, regardless of political party or ideology.
Such a vision could easily build upon our own populist Wisconsin Idea and should emphasize:
- Job training: how colleges and universities are the primary training grounds for new and up-skilling engineers, nurses, teachers, business leaders, entrepreneurs, non-profit leaders, community organizers, and artists across entire regions;
- Economic growth: how campuses like UW-Madison generate $15 billion in economic impact, driving innovation, talent recruitment, and capital investment — benefiting entire states and the nation;
- Research and outreach: how our research leads to life-changing discoveries that impact all citizens, with outreach via units like UW Extension leading community efforts like 4-H and agricultural innovation throughout the state; and,
- Teaching: how higher education broadens the minds of generations via education in the classics as well as new, cutting-edge ideas.
The many and varied benefits of higher education to the public risk being overshadowed in the court of public opinion by fictional, ideologically-driven charges of Maoist faculty running amok in the nation’s college classrooms. Articulating an alternative view while defending Columbia University is essential to avoid the frightening but real prospect that a UW-Madison student could be arrested without charges for “political speech” or individual departments shut down by government directive.
Chancellor Mnookin has said that an institutional statement may be warranted if “academic freedom itself were threatened” and that in such a situation, “the university should not stay silent.” That time has come, and UW-Madison must now speak up.
