You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
Presidents are tired of being criticized for not speaking out publicly, among other things.
CihatDeniz/E+/Getty Images
Harvard University made headlines yesterday for refusing to acquiesce to the Trump administration’s lengthy list of demands, issued as a kind of ransom to be paid in exchange for the release of $9 billion in federal research funds. In a widely celebrated letter to the college community, Harvard president Alan Garber wrote, “We have informed the administration through our legal counsel that we will not accept their proposed agreement. The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.”
That makes Garber one of the first—and certainly the most high-profile—higher ed leader to publicly take a stand against the president’s unbridled assault on postsecondary education. Wesleyan University president Michael Roth is another; in a recent Inside Higher Ed op-ed, he wrote that college leaders have all the tools they need to preserve diversity, equity and inclusion and academic freedom, “as long as we resist the attempts by politicians and their billionaire allies to drown us out with invective and fear-mongering.”
But plenty of other college leaders without the platform, board support or overflowing coffers that Garber and Roth enjoy are waging their own spirited battles to save academe from President Donald J. Trump.
In The Sandbox, Inside Higher Ed’s members-only weekly newsletter where presidents from a wide range of institutions have the opportunity to write anonymously about their experiences, college leaders have revealed the challenges of the job under Trump 2.0. Among other things, they are sick of being told to stop cowering and fight back, like their peers Garber and Roth.
“Under 45, our resistance was loud—protests, legal challenges, media campaigns. We called out every attack, knowing the system, flawed as it was, still pretended to follow the rules,” wrote one president in an issue devoted entirely to presidents speaking out about not speaking out.
“But under 47, the landscape has changed. The repression is smarter, more procedural, more permanent. Now, dissent isn’t just punished in the moment—it’s weaponized retroactively … So, we’ve adapted. What once roared like Public Enemy now moves like Nina Simone’s quiet defiance—deliberate, strategic, impossible to ignore. The goal isn’t to perform resistance for an audience; it’s to protect our people while still pushing back. Silence isn’t surrender—it’s signal interference. A shift in strategy, not in conviction. We’re not avoiding the fight; we’re choosing battles that keep us in the game. Because when the playbook changes, so must the response. And right now, survival is resistance.”
Another leader expressed anger at the betrayal of their predecessors.
“So now, in addition to President Trump and his cronies vilifying higher ed leaders, we also have to contend with criticism from former presidents and chancellors who seem—without irony—to think throwing the current leaders under the bus is helpful,” the president wrote. “This friendly fire is especially galling when it comes from people who didn’t have to manage COVID, Floyd summer, congressional witch hunts, the Gaza/Israel protests, or Trump 2.0. Yet they feel perfectly entitled to serve as backseat drivers.”
And another said they remained silent “not out of fear, but because I question the impact of speaking out right now. I’ve assured my campus I won’t stand by if our mission or curriculum is threatened. But some institutions seem to be accepting such interference. I wait. Ready to act, to take risks, and to find the moment that will matter most. I suspect I’m not alone. At least, I hope I’m not.”
In response to The Sandbox editor Rachel Toor’s prompt “What is your biggest fear?” leaders disclosed their anxieties about the future of the higher education sector and the consequences for their campuses if they speak up.
“My biggest heartburn right now is that the load of crap coming out of D.C. is spreading across some/many state legislatures and boards of trustees,” wrote one president. “Either it is emboldening them or they are getting in line for fear of retribution. As we see, those that stand up are punished. It’s all fine for the Wesleyan president to stand up (I assume his board backs him up and his institution is less reliant on public funds). If I stand up, wave a red flag, and am then fired, how is that serving the institution? If states and boards would stand up to the federal government, I think I would get a lot more sleep at night.”
“What keeps me up at night is the sheer cruelty of the decisions and insanity of orders coming out of Washington,” wrote another. “They appear intent on the destruction of every institution that is designed to do good in the world, from educational institutions to those that make discoveries to advance science to HHS that is designed to promote health and prevent disease to global institutions designed to protect world peace, hunger, and health.
“I fear for the next generation that we are raising and how they will differentiate good from evil, right from wrong, moral from immoral … Despite this, when I speak with my own students, they are now approaching commencement with optimism and enthusiasm for their futures. This gives me hope that our next generation will survive this crazy era. They are truly remarkable; they are resilient, brilliant, and talented, and I believe they will become the best generation we’ve known.”
Read more of the presidents’ personal essays here.
Learn how to become a member and sign up to receive The Sandbox and other members-only features.
