When Pinker criticizes MAGA it would be more helpful if he parsed out what he objects to as far as the movement rather than painting a broad brush. I'm not even sure what exactly people are referring to when they use the term. I know some people think it is a dog whistle for racism, but reviewing the last few decades, it does seem like "America" could use some improvement.
Good to see Rauch's "Constitution of Knowledge" foregrounded in this article. Rauch's work on epistemic institutions and the checks and balances among them is more important than ever in a time when many institutions (like universities) need to do internal reforms rather than fundamentally change their missions under assaults on them and their core purposes of scholarship, teaching, and service.
I just returned from a very lively and timely Heterodox Academy conference--lots of ideas to process from the event.
I will note, to extend some of the thinking in Michael's article, that Nadine Strossen, former President of the ACLU, and now FIRE Board member, and one of our best scholars and experts on free speech, introduced a panel of university presidents who debated (sometimes fiercely) what options are available when colleges and universities are targeted by the Trump administration. In introducing that panel, Strossen described our current predicament (and I'm roughly paraphrasing her), as one where we lived with the "soft despotism" within our colleges and universities, and other cultural institutions, with the prevailing monoculture, cancel culture, and likely Title IX violations, which has now being overtaken by a "hard despotism" of the current administration, with violations of civil liberties and due process , assaults on epistemic institutions' funding, threats against international students, coercion of law firms, and coercion of media organizations. Certainly there's been authoritarian measures, and two forms of illiberalism, at work in our institutions and government for a number of years. The question at this point is how to move forward (if it's possible) with the current administration going to a place of fundamental violations of liberal democratic norms and principles.
I was recently reading bits of "Recessional" by David Mamet; it's a bunch of essays. In one essay he talks about the word "stakeholder". He points out that a stakeholder is precisely someone who holds the stakes, like an escrow service. And when the game is over, the stakeholder hands over the stakes to the actual bettors, the people who stand to win or lose. The stakeholder is, by definition, a bystander. It's weird that somehow, when the word is used as a metaphor, it has essentially the opposite meaning to its literal one. I wish the word were used less frequently, because it is somehow rather misleading.
Apologies for the long URL (no way to shorten it), but this article, "Higher Ed Must Recommit to its Enlightenment Roots", by Emilee Chamlee-Wright, gives an excellent account of what colleges and universities must now do when facing assaults from the Trump administration. And this recommitment very much comports with what Michael's article describes as well in adhering to liberal principles between ideological extremes, the two illiberalisms.
Very thoughtful article Michael, and very well-reasoned. Thank you for reminding us of liberal principles in a time of epistemic confusion and chaos.
When Pinker criticizes MAGA it would be more helpful if he parsed out what he objects to as far as the movement rather than painting a broad brush. I'm not even sure what exactly people are referring to when they use the term. I know some people think it is a dog whistle for racism, but reviewing the last few decades, it does seem like "America" could use some improvement.
Good to see Rauch's "Constitution of Knowledge" foregrounded in this article. Rauch's work on epistemic institutions and the checks and balances among them is more important than ever in a time when many institutions (like universities) need to do internal reforms rather than fundamentally change their missions under assaults on them and their core purposes of scholarship, teaching, and service.
I just returned from a very lively and timely Heterodox Academy conference--lots of ideas to process from the event.
I will note, to extend some of the thinking in Michael's article, that Nadine Strossen, former President of the ACLU, and now FIRE Board member, and one of our best scholars and experts on free speech, introduced a panel of university presidents who debated (sometimes fiercely) what options are available when colleges and universities are targeted by the Trump administration. In introducing that panel, Strossen described our current predicament (and I'm roughly paraphrasing her), as one where we lived with the "soft despotism" within our colleges and universities, and other cultural institutions, with the prevailing monoculture, cancel culture, and likely Title IX violations, which has now being overtaken by a "hard despotism" of the current administration, with violations of civil liberties and due process , assaults on epistemic institutions' funding, threats against international students, coercion of law firms, and coercion of media organizations. Certainly there's been authoritarian measures, and two forms of illiberalism, at work in our institutions and government for a number of years. The question at this point is how to move forward (if it's possible) with the current administration going to a place of fundamental violations of liberal democratic norms and principles.
I was recently reading bits of "Recessional" by David Mamet; it's a bunch of essays. In one essay he talks about the word "stakeholder". He points out that a stakeholder is precisely someone who holds the stakes, like an escrow service. And when the game is over, the stakeholder hands over the stakes to the actual bettors, the people who stand to win or lose. The stakeholder is, by definition, a bystander. It's weird that somehow, when the word is used as a metaphor, it has essentially the opposite meaning to its literal one. I wish the word were used less frequently, because it is somehow rather misleading.
Apologies for the long URL (no way to shorten it), but this article, "Higher Ed Must Recommit to its Enlightenment Roots", by Emilee Chamlee-Wright, gives an excellent account of what colleges and universities must now do when facing assaults from the Trump administration. And this recommitment very much comports with what Michael's article describes as well in adhering to liberal principles between ideological extremes, the two illiberalisms.
https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/views/2025/06/17/higher-ed-must-recommit-its-enlightenment-roots-opinion?utm_term=0_1fcbc04421-97c693451e-236372426&mc_cid=97c693451e&mc_eid=a1287fbe03&utm_campaign=Weekly%20Bulletin%20Emails%20FY25&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--Wvln9S6BFVKcdUClmJAFniOhSGPxPhAsmw57e4gzOOm2L_d3fBFv3xjSb2t0TTShaJHDwGseH35HoPxEhg5c6RCf-nA&_hsmi=368231390&utm_content=368231390&utm_source=hs_email