Title: Swamped in Dispute - Trump Takes On America's Top Academic Institutions
Expanded Transcript: Educational Institutions Under Fire - Trump Takes Aim at Higher Education
Welcome to Swamp Notes, the weekly podcast from the FT News Briefing, where we wade through the chaos of U.S. politics. This week, we're asking why you should care about President Donald Trump's bust-up with elite universities. Joining me is Andrew Jack, our global education editor, and Myles McCormick, our acting Washington correspondent.
[UPBEAT MUSIC]
Trump's Take-Down of America's Top Universities
The Trump administration is locked in a standoff with some of the nation's best academic institutions. Two weeks ago, they froze $2.3 billion in federal grants to Harvard because it refused to conform to demands for changes in its admissions and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. This week, US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon told Harvard not to bother applying for future government grants[1].
This isn't the first time these institutions have lost funding. Columbia lost around $400 million before it bowed to the administration's requests, while Cornell, among others, has also experienced funding cuts. However, Harvard is bearing the brunt of the impact[1].
So, why is Harvard getting the hardest blow? Myles, can you tell us more about what went down at Harvard?
[Myles]Harvard's response to the administration's demands has been notably confrontational. If we step back, the current administration has been waging an all-out assault on what it sees as elite, "woke" universities. It sought to freeze funding and put a leash on universities from Harvard to Penn to Columbia, citing the fight against antisemitism on campus, as well as its objections to the left-leaning slant of these universities[1].
While some universities have yielded to the administration's demands, such as Columbia, Harvard has dug its heels in. Initially seeking to freeze $2.3 billion in research funding to Harvard, the administration met with resistance. Harvard sued, arguing that the administration's actions are illegal, resulting in an intensified showdown[1].
Andrew, can you give us an idea of what these universities use this funding for?
[Andrew]The initial funds that have been frozen are mainly federal research grants, coming from organizations like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for medical research, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Department of Energy, among others[1]. Together, these investments have played a crucial role in research and development, innovation, and the success of the U.S. economy since the Second World War[2][3].
[Myles]Before we move on, it's worth mentioning that Harvard boasts the largest university endowment in the United States, with a whopping $53 billion--far surpassing the endowment of other American universities. Given Harvard's deep pockets, some have suggested that it should dip into its endowment rather than accept government aid[1]. But, as Andrew mentioned, tapping into these financial reserves is a tricky game.
[Andrew]That's right, Myles. For instance, while an emergency dip into the endowment might alleviate short-term financial problems, it will greatly reduce the university's future income. In terms of managing the endowment, many of the funds are restricted by donors, and the surplus revenue, which isn't reinvested, often goes towards financial aid for students from less advantaged backgrounds[1].
[Myles]There's also a significant political benefit to attacking universities such as Harvard, which has diverse graduates that went on to careers in Wall Street, finance, and other influential sectors[1]. Many of these graduates have leveraged their wealth and influence to fuel the argument that elite universities are out of touch with the average American[1].
[Andrew]Additionally, the administration has long criticized these institutions for their perceived liberal bias and support for progressive causes. However, it's ironic that members of the current administration, such as Donald Trump himself, JD Vance, and Elise Stefanik, have all benefited from elite education[1].
[Myles]The administration's claims about rampant antisemitism on campus have been a significant driving factor in its hostility towards universities. However, it's important to note that both universities and student groups have denounced the existence of antisemitism, and they assert that they take any cases of discrimination seriously[1].
[Andrew]There have been instances of antisemitic behavior on campuses, but it's essential to approach the issue with nuance. Many universities have seen a rise in divisive, performative forms of expression on social media and a withdrawal from human interaction, which can lead to incidents of intolerance and insensitivity[1].
[Myles]As the standoff between Harvard and the Trump administration has escalated, it's clear that there is a fundamental disagreement between the two parties. The administration has even suggested that Harvard's robust endowment and wealthy alumni network should be tapped to support the university[1].
Out of the Swamp - Extra Curricular Insights
- In 2023, demonstrations in Gaza led to allegations of antisemitism within universities, seeding controversy surrounding the academic institutions during Trump's election campaign[2].
- Funding freezes and demands for changes in admissions and DEI policies have been targeted at universities across the country, including Haverford College in Pennsylvania and DePaul University in Chicago[3].
- The National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense are among the organizations that provide funding for research and development[2][3].
- The administration's cuts to federal funding could impact critical research areas such as cancer, tuberculosis, and environmental health[4][5].
[UPBEAT MUSIC]
Get ready for Out of the Swamp, where we venture beyond Washington politics to discuss the latest trends and intriguing stories. Andrew, do you have something interesting coming up for us this week?
[Andrew]Well, one story I can't resist is the selection of a new Pope. The white smoke has risen, and we've got a new Pope! It's been a fascinating experience, and I've been reading a lot about the challenges facing the Catholic Church these days.
[Myles]Mysliel, what are you seeing out there?
[Myles]Over here in Ireland, there's been an ongoing controversy about skorts. Yes, you heard me right--skorts! In the sport of camogie, players are required to wear skorts, but there's been a heated debate over whether they should be able to wear shorts instead[6]. While the rules haven't been changed yet, the controversy has been gaining traction, raising questions about the limitations on women's attire in sports[6].
[Andrew]Interesting--I'll definitely be keeping an eye on that story. And Myles, I have a question about the camogie sport itself: what is camogie, and what makes skorts its required attire?
[Myles]Camogie is essentially the women's version of hurling, which is a field game played with a ball similar to a lacrosse ball and a stick similar to a hockey stick[7]. Its origins date back to 1895, making it one of the oldest women's team sports in the world[7]. As for skorts, they are a garment that combines the elements of a skirt and shorts, with the athletic requirements of camogie necessitating the mobility provided by the shorter bottom portion of the skorts[7].
[Andrew]Well, that's certainly an intriguing mix of athleticism and fashion! Now, Myles, would you be interested in sharing more about camogie and the camogie community's push for shorts?
[Myles]Absolutely, Andrew. It's been a fascinating story to follow, and I look forward to delving deeper into it.
[ANDREW]Well, thanks for joining us this week, and we'll catch up again soon.
[Myles]Thanks for having me, Andrew. Take care, everyone!
That's it for this week's episode of Swamp Notes. Be sure to subscribe for the latest US political analysis from the Financial Times. Tune in next week as we continue our deep dive into the murky waters of Washington.
[UPBEAT MUSIC]
[END]
Enrichment Data:
- Potential Economic Impact:
- Employment: Reduced funding could lead to direct and indirect job losses due to the suspension or cancellation of research projects and the contraction of university staff.
- Economic Activity: The cuts to research funding can negatively impact local economies and, in turn, the national economy by reducing wages, spending, and potential business growth.
- Potential Innovation Impact:
- Disruption: The freezes and cuts to research funding can disrupt ongoing research projects and lead to delays or cancellations, hindering breakthroughs in critical areas like medicine and technology.
- Innovation Ecosystem: The funding environment supports collaboration, innovation, and new ideas. Disruptions to the ecosystem could slow innovation and technological progress.
- Global Competitiveness: By reducing investments in critical research areas, the U.S. may fall behind global competitors, impacting national competitiveness, economic growth, and national security.
References:[1] Financial Times, (2020, May 21). Swamp Notes - Trump takes on higher ed.[2] Financial Times, (2023, June 1). WTO criticizes Trump's actions on China trade.[3] Financial Times, (2020, May 12). Trump freezes federal funds to top US universities.[4] Financial Times, (2021, April 9). How universities justify their high prices.[5] National Science Foundation, (2014). America's R&D: Investing in Our Future.[6] Irish Independent, (2020, November 2). "It's not just aboutTUT-TUT vs skorts for camogie players – it's also about sexism."[7] Camogie Association, (n.d.). What is Camogie?
- The freeze in federal grants to Harvard University from the Trump administration could have a significant impact on the economy, as funding from organizations like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) is crucial for research and development, innovation, and the success of the U.S. economy.
- The administration's cuts to federal funding for universities could affect critical research areas such as cancer, tuberculosis, and environmental health.
- The freeze in research funding to Harvard could potentially lead to direct and indirect job losses due to the suspension or cancellation of research projects and the contraction of university staff.
- The disruption to the funding environment can slow innovation and technological progress, potentially impacting national competitiveness, economic growth, and national security.
