“Donald Trump’s presidency is a disaster for American universities and research”

It has now been exactly one year since Donald Trump took office. How do you personally assess the impact of his term in office so far on the higher education and science system in the United States?

Donald Trump’s presidency is a disaster for the American university and research landscape. Since World War II, there has been a kind of social contract between universities and the government in the US. Universities conduct research that helps the economy and the military, and educate people who have considerable intellectual horizons and thus also strengthen democracy. Universities also attract new talent to the US, which is important because the American school system could not possibly keep up with providing these large numbers of top universities with sufficient talent. American universities have, in a sense, educated the whole world in recent decades, thereby greatly strengthening American soft power around the globe. In return, the government has invested a great deal of money in universities and given them a great deal of freedom to do as they see fit. The government has also given universities a lot of leeway when it comes to granting visas, relying largely on their selection processes.

This social contract has been upheld by Democratic and Republican presidents, but has been thoroughly rethought over the past year. Whether this will ultimately lead to a termination of the contract or rather a restructuring, and what that would mean exactly, has not yet been decided. The Republicans are probably not in agreement on this either. Of course, there has been a lot of resistance to this, and the federal government is not the only relevant player here. And now we must hope that this year’s midterm elections will give us a Democratic House of Representatives and thus an end to the trifecta. Otherwise, the role of universities in American society and the role of top American universities in the world would be seriously threatened.

Shortly after Donald Trump took office, the US government accused your university, Harvard University, of not having taken sufficient action against antisemitic activities on campus in the past, particularly in the period after 7 October 2023. This accusation was often linked to criticism that academic freedom at Harvard was restricted because only ‘woke’ or left-liberal research and teaching was tolerated there. How do you assess these accusations?

For all relevant purposes, that is utter nonsense. Of course, a lot has happened on our campus and elsewhere in the US since October 7, 2023. It was a generational awakening for many people here, and some things got out of hand. This immediately led to massive battles over interpretive authority, and suddenly everyone wanted to have an opinion about Harvard and antisemitism. People didn’t even recognize their own campus in the media coverage. Any kind of bigotry is bad for universities, and Harvard addressed the issue and could have resolved it all through internal processes.

It’s easy to prove that Trump’s people aren’t really concerned with protecting Jewish students. He’s basically doing the same thing to universities here that he did to the EU with tariffs – extorting protection money – and here he’s doing it with this moral and legal cudgel. The whole “woke” teaching thing is similar nonsense. I myself was canceled by the woke people a few years ago and I’m still teaching here. What we practically don’t have here are MAGA people who insist that Trump was robbed of the 2020 election. American universities are more “left-wing” than the average population, certainly, but people who are seriously left-wing would hardly see themselves as setting the tone in places like Harvard. And, of course, every serious course covers the entire spectrum of reputable opinions, including conservative positions. In this way, universities have been drawn into the culture wars. You simply shouldn’t believe this nonsense.

What specific effects did and does the dispute between the US government and Harvard have on your work and the work of your international colleagues? Are there certain groups of people who are particularly affected by the consequences of this dispute?

The government is a formidable opponent and can harm universities in many ways – we need certifications, accreditations, a certain tax status, and financial support so that Harvard can carry out the full range of its activities at this level of excellence with talent from all over the world. For decades, Harvard has been a central nexus in global scientific activity. Right now, it is hitting medical professionals and colleagues in the field of public health particularly hard – they have simply had the government support they depended on cut off. I myself am the director of the Carr-Ryan Center for Human Rights, a very visible human rights center. The antisemitism club is also being wielded against us, precisely because we have done balanced work in the Israel/Palestine area – which, incidentally, is only a very small part of our overall work.

At the moment, it is not yet clear where all this will lead. Columbia and Brown have already concluded their “deals” with Trump. Harvard is still in talks, and of course there is a lot at stake. The government has demanded total control over admissions, hiring, and curriculum from us. Of course, we cannot concede that. The payment of a penalty – or protection money – in the amount of $500 million is on the table. That is horrendous, but the integrity of this very special institution would be worth it. And then we have to hope that this cup will pass us by. Whether that will happen is still written in the stars.

Even though we usually only ask three questions in this interview series, we would like to make an exception and ask you a fourth question at the end: Could you briefly describe to our readers how you came to be a professor at Harvard University? Did you plan from the outset to teach and conduct research at Harvard, or were there coincidences or unplanned events that led you to Harvard?

Of course, you can’t plan something like that. I originally came to the US for a year, as was customary in the 1990s. I was in Pittsburgh, which, for historical reasons, had a world-class philosophy department – something I didn’t know beforehand. I quickly realized that my area of philosophy was a much larger and more vibrant subject in the US than in Germany. At the same time, I was also studying mathematics with a focus on game theory, and it turned out that I was able to spend another year at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem through a connection I had made in Pittsburgh. I then gathered enough relevant references to apply for a good PhD program – and, against all reasonable expectations, I was accepted at Princeton. After that, I entered the normal American job market, spending two years at Yale University and then, since 2002, at Harvard University.