After the jump is a letter written by Michael Peshkin, a Northwestern engineering prof, to the University Under Threat, a group of NU faculty.
Before listing the many ways Northwestern no long runs Northwestern, Peshkin includes this:
We acknowledge that our Board of Trustees extended bridge funding that has kept research afloat and protected graduate student careers during the long suspension of grant reimbursements to the University. We also note that the university has agreed to pay the tribute demanded by the Trump government to restore the delayed funds. At the same time, we lament that many activities within funded research, and indeed whole grants, were terminated by the government on political grounds. Generally, those grants intended to benefit the health, well-being, education, or workforce development of underrepresented groups–a core part of what Northwestern is.
A friend who teaches at NU said something similar: Research units that depend on federal funding likely drove the settlement. The university endowment (through which the university made up the shortfall) would have been tapped by the end of this month and the university would have had to make serious program cuts. My friend analogized this to the law-firm settlements–the private equity groups pushed the settlements to keep the money flowing, despite what the litigation side might have wanted.
Higher ed’s ability to protect itself wanes if the Administration succeeds in dividing STEM (which depends on federal dollars and which perceives itself as pure science, not touched by the “wokeness” the government hates) and the humanities (which are DoE’s real target). The former may be tempted to throw the latter to the wolves to protect itself. I cannot find the story or my post, but a STEM prof (either at Cornell or Columbia) made that argument a few months ago–“leave us alone to cure cancer and go after those other people who are saying crazy shit.”
I thought that this dynamic might not be in play at NU, given the overwhelming Faculty Assembly resolution (approved 595-4-8); a vote such as that must reflect views across subject areas. On closer look though, the vote was about the compact. Although the resolution rejected “similar demands that undermine constitutional rights, democratic principles, faculty governance, institutional autonomy, and academic freedom,” it could be that research faculty viewed the compact differently than settling an ongoing controversy to restore previously stripped money. Even if the surrender of academic freedom looks the same in the end.
Peshkin’s letter after the jump (click “2” below):