Its splashy self-examination reads less like a serious reform agenda than a carefully choreographed contrition statement aimed at a hostile administration
Suppose that the Trump administration wrote a report that said that the nation's book clubs are not fulfilling their "compact with America" and that, from now on, at least 50% of the books in a book club should be approved by the administration.
Should you acknowledge that the nation's book clubs need to change?
Should you admit that, indeed, some of the books we've been reading are bad?
Or....here me out...Should you say that this is none of the federal government's F-ing business unless my book club is, somehow, breaking federal law?
It’s not clear that any of this even frames the issue correctly.
Government involvement in education is illiberal. It violates individual rights, and in the US is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment’s protections for free speech. The liberal position is to remove government from education altogether.
Beyond that, once education is fully privatized, universities are free to determine their own admissions standards, institutional cultures, and academic priorities, and if people dislike the outcomes, then they can take their business elsewhere. These are not political issues.
As an alum, one who's been deeply frustrated with the university's behavior these past couple decades and said so in writing, I agree with the faculty comments. You're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good here.
Like I said, it could have taken a two-pronged approach, acknowledge that it needs to change, but also saying that it will stand its ground against an ideologically motivated regime willing to deploy the iron fist of the state to impose its agenda.
In which case it would be deflecting from the exercise's stated purpose.
No defense here of the regime in DC to say the very least. But Yale set out to self-examine, did so, and published the results. Good. Declining to "yes but" those findings is a _strength_ of the report not a weakness.
(Among other reasons, addiction to "yes but" is one of the ways that our society and institutions have stumbled and bumbled into the cesspool that is 2026. So a major institution declining to so indulge represents a notable step back in the right direction.)
I agree. President McInnes convened a committee on public trust in higher education. They did a lot of hard work and research talking to a lot of people, and produced a report on that topic. They were not tasked with producing a report on the Trump administration's assault on higher ed, and had they produced a report that deflected from the problems they identified to say: "yeah we've made some mistakes, but not big enough ones to justify what Trump is doing!" it would have made the mea culpa look a lot less credible.
The idea that this is aimed only at Trump strikes me as inarguably speculative, and probably uncharitable. The "Faculty for Yale" letter (linked below) was written before Trump's reelection, touched on many of the same themes, and several of its signatories were on the committee that produced the more recent report. There have been people within Yale and similar institutions who've been pushing for these sorts of changes for a long time, when the "hostage situation" framing wasn't applicable. If, now that we have Trump attacking the sector, our stance tone is: "well *now* isn't the time to forthrightly acknowledge and address these problems, because it looks too concessive to Trump" we'll breed a lot of cynicism, because for whatever reason it *also* seemed not to be the right time to address them before he was elected.
Yes, precisely. We've spent decades breeding -- to be honest earning -- exactly that cynicism. Continuing to blow the same hole in our public standing is just our ongoing gift to MAGA.
Indeed. Whatever quibbles I might have with universities, the determining factor in the success or failure of fascism tends to be institutions standing up or backing down. This is them cringing and showing their belly, not a genuine introspection.
Suppose that the Trump administration wrote a report that said that the nation's book clubs are not fulfilling their "compact with America" and that, from now on, at least 50% of the books in a book club should be approved by the administration.
Should you acknowledge that the nation's book clubs need to change?
Should you admit that, indeed, some of the books we've been reading are bad?
Or....here me out...Should you say that this is none of the federal government's F-ing business unless my book club is, somehow, breaking federal law?
It’s not clear that any of this even frames the issue correctly.
Government involvement in education is illiberal. It violates individual rights, and in the US is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment’s protections for free speech. The liberal position is to remove government from education altogether.
Beyond that, once education is fully privatized, universities are free to determine their own admissions standards, institutional cultures, and academic priorities, and if people dislike the outcomes, then they can take their business elsewhere. These are not political issues.
As an alum, one who's been deeply frustrated with the university's behavior these past couple decades and said so in writing, I agree with the faculty comments. You're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good here.
Like I said, it could have taken a two-pronged approach, acknowledge that it needs to change, but also saying that it will stand its ground against an ideologically motivated regime willing to deploy the iron fist of the state to impose its agenda.
In which case it would be deflecting from the exercise's stated purpose.
No defense here of the regime in DC to say the very least. But Yale set out to self-examine, did so, and published the results. Good. Declining to "yes but" those findings is a _strength_ of the report not a weakness.
(Among other reasons, addiction to "yes but" is one of the ways that our society and institutions have stumbled and bumbled into the cesspool that is 2026. So a major institution declining to so indulge represents a notable step back in the right direction.)
I agree. President McInnes convened a committee on public trust in higher education. They did a lot of hard work and research talking to a lot of people, and produced a report on that topic. They were not tasked with producing a report on the Trump administration's assault on higher ed, and had they produced a report that deflected from the problems they identified to say: "yeah we've made some mistakes, but not big enough ones to justify what Trump is doing!" it would have made the mea culpa look a lot less credible.
The idea that this is aimed only at Trump strikes me as inarguably speculative, and probably uncharitable. The "Faculty for Yale" letter (linked below) was written before Trump's reelection, touched on many of the same themes, and several of its signatories were on the committee that produced the more recent report. There have been people within Yale and similar institutions who've been pushing for these sorts of changes for a long time, when the "hostage situation" framing wasn't applicable. If, now that we have Trump attacking the sector, our stance tone is: "well *now* isn't the time to forthrightly acknowledge and address these problems, because it looks too concessive to Trump" we'll breed a lot of cynicism, because for whatever reason it *also* seemed not to be the right time to address them before he was elected.
https://campuspress.yale.edu/facultyforyale/
Yes, precisely. We've spent decades breeding -- to be honest earning -- exactly that cynicism. Continuing to blow the same hole in our public standing is just our ongoing gift to MAGA.
Mr. Botts, if the colleges have bred public cynicism toward them over decades, how did they do so and is there a solution to the problem?
The Yale report does a decent job answering both those questions; well worth the read.
Indeed. Whatever quibbles I might have with universities, the determining factor in the success or failure of fascism tends to be institutions standing up or backing down. This is them cringing and showing their belly, not a genuine introspection.