In fighting the current threatening threats issued by the Trump administration, it is important to remember that symbols are substance.
Frankly speaking, politics is always right in general, but at this moment, it is more real and more important than ever.
In different responses from Harvard and Columbia, we currently have an example of the subject of principles at work when it comes to threats to funding and control needs of the Trump administration.
Columbia appeared to capitulate, forgetting an “agreement” to take steps sought by Trump, ostensibly to address antisemitism on campus, but this fig leaf was unconvincing, and Trump himself quickly dropped the pretense, as we all understand he has no interest in combat antisemitism and every interest in sending signals of domination and staking fear that turns into pre-emptive compliance from other institutions.
Faced with threatening threats, Colombia looks nothing more than printing and weakness, and is also important for Colombia’s internal and external rebound.
By contrast, once Harvard received a request from the Trump administration, it developed a careful public response, generating a variety of public-oriented communications designed to talk to different audiences with different needs (media, public, students, students, faculty, staff, alumni), including a letter from Harvard President Alan Garber, a letter from Alan Garber to the university community, citing the agency’s shared responsibility to defend the institution’s core values and the core values of higher education.
To be fair, Harvard’s phone calls are much easier than Columbia for several reasons. On the one hand, Harvard saw what happened in Columbia, where it seems that the surrender to outsiders is still insufficient, as Trump is once again interested in surrender and has no consensus. When characters in the Trump world like JD Vance and Chris Rufo say they are going to destroy higher education, we should take them seriously.
The Trump administration’s demands on Harvard are also extremely extreme – essentially taking over the university – it has no choice but to resist and take every possible step to gather others. The public’s desire for a response to an agency that Trump cannot rob is so great that New York Times The editorial board approved Harvard’s actions and the university’s clear commitment to oppose a violation of the rule of law.
Columbia History Professor Matthew Connelly gave interesting information in the form of a column by Columbia History Professor. writing The New York TimesConnelly lamented that his agency found its misfortune, first hit by Trump and then suffered a “loop shooting squad” of those who opposed Trump’s signing of a collective boycott of Colombia.
Connelly believes that we should not see Colombia as a “submission” to Trump because “in fact, many of the actions announced by the Colombian government on March 21 are similar to those originally proposed by more than 200 faculty and staff last August.”
In other words, agreeing with Trump, Colombia is just doing what it might have to do. Connery went on to argue that Columbia will never succumb to the key principles of institutional operations, with acting Columbia University president Claire Shipman later announcing that Columbia will not sign any agreements that would “requir us to abandon our independence and autonomy as educational institutions.”
Colombia’s actions look similar to those taken by some large law firms that have reached a vague wording “agreed” with Trump, promising not to “illegal hiring” and donating tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars to donate to Trump’s favorite Pro Bono. exist Memo of the key points of the conversationJosh Marshall has dug out some of these protocols and found that there is not much specific substance to be found, and the wording is often so general and vague that it is easy for companies to fulfill the protocol without taking any measures without doing any usual patterns and practices.
I don’t quite sympathize with Connery’s stimulus or the decision of a large law firm; they think they can get Trump some small performative pleas and go back to the substantive work.
They obviously misread the moment. I don’t know what other evidence we need to come up with is that Trump intends to be an authoritarian. In these law firms and Columbia cases, the entire battle was when Trump was allowed to achieve symbolic victory over these institutions in order to make them viewed as striking.
Strangely, symbolic battles are real battles against principles, but this is clearly the case. Trump wants to make others afraid to stand on his dictatorial goals, so he will only violate the rule of law until someone forces the victims to fight. There is no choice but to test the government’s determination. Trump’s response to the “Society of Truth” after Harvard’s actions showed that it was intended to destroy Harvard’s reputation with many right-wing metaphors, but such remarks showed how non-existent his substantive case was.
Any real or even perceived surrender is a loss. Any option will bring costs. Trump is following Harvard’s funding and nonprofit status, and there will be obvious turmoil in the university for the foreseeable future. But turbulence is different from aircraft heading towards the ground.
Harvard developed legal strategies before the fight. Laws and precedents seem to be on their side, although this is not a guarantee of success. Trump seems determined to reject everything he can withstand in his ongoing attempts to coerce.
What we are learning is that there is no adaptation or agreement with authoritarian projects. Harvard’s position is an important symbolic illustration of this, and due to its symbolic significance, it turns out to be substantial.
Hopefully this is just the first example of how to fight back.
