The Trump regime revealed a core part of its fascist intention yesterday when it announced actions against Harvard University.
According to the New York Times:
A letter the Trump administration sent to Harvard on Friday demanded that the university reduce the power of students and faculty members over the university's affairs; report foreign students who commit conduct violations immediately to federal authorities; and bring in an outside party to ensure that each academic department is “viewpoint diverse,” among other steps. The administration did not define what it meant by viewpoint diversity, but it has generally referred to seeking a range of political views, including conservative perspectives.
Harvard decided to say no. As a result, last night, the Trump regime announced that it would freeze $2.2 billion in grants to Harvard, spread over multiple years, along with a $60 million contract.
Let's be clear: Harvard can afford this. It has a duty to fight Trump, given the wealth that it has. Education there will not end, as yet, because of it having taken this stance. Many other US universities will not, of course, be in such a position.
It has said, again, according to the NYT:
“No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”
I agree with that. I think the word 'private' was extraneous. What we are very obviously seeing is a blatant attempt to limit what might be said, taught, understood, researched and tolerated at universities. That is the antithesis of what a university should be about, although probably not when it comes to economics these days, where only neoliberalism is allowed (and I am not joking).
The attempt that is being made is, in fact, a reflection of a desire to recreate the hegemonic power of neoliberal thought within economics right across the university sphere.
Neoliberal thinking is based on a series of assumptions in which the autonomy of the individual is not respected. Their ability to choose is implicitly assumed to be controllable by market behaviours, or why would the virtues of advertising and marketing be so lauded? The right of government to intervene is denounced. The consequence of corporate actions is ignored, hence, climate change. And the goal of wealth maximisation, which is very obviously only possible for a few, is promoted as if it should be the goal of all, even though that is clearly not possible. The assumptions on which these outcomes are modelled are not based on any observable form of human behavior. The absurdity of this is ignored. Economics is about the creation of theory to justify the status quo power structure within society, and not to actually educate or inform, let alone suggest how matters might be improved or reformed.
This is what Trump wants across education, I have no doubt.
He does not want a diversity of views. That is the last thing he desires.. Instead, he wants unthinking compliance.
What he wants is subservience. And obedience. The last thing he will want is freedom of speech. When that is what his regime says, they are Goebbelian in their statements, stating the exact opposite if what they really desire.
Nor will he wish for innovation, thinking, or alternatives. He is more than happy with what is, and unquestioning acceptance of it.
This is, in other words, anti-intellectualism. That is, and always has been, a core feature of fascism, whichever way you want to define it.
Fascism is based on myths that a majority of the population can always see through. It requires unquestioning acceptance of a world view. Where questions arise, force is used. That direct threat is already implicit in the Trump threat to foreign students at Harvard. It is also direct in the sense that financial pressure, used in the way the Trump regime is using it, is a use of force. The fascist knows they cannot win the argument with the intellectual, so they frighten them into silence instead.
Will Harvard win this battle? It has to. If it does not, the USA has succumbed to fascism. I may not love all that Harvard is or represents, but it is better than the fascist alternative.
Might it do that? I cannot know.
But what I do know is that despite all this, Starmer will still be saying we still have a special relationship with the USA. Of that, you can be sure. Is that because he is a fascist enabler? Is there another explanation available?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I saw a brief reel from some state legislature in the USA whereby the republican bawbag actually quoted Goebbels to support his non-point.
Let’s just allow that to sink in. US politicians feel so emboldened they are using Nazi quotes to support their current policies.
The Democratic lady who was given the floor was obviously dumbfounded.
[…] a follow-up to the post I have already made this morning concerning Trump's attack on US universities, which has the obvious intention of restricting their […]
There are reports this morning that there is a “good chance” of a trade deal between the UK and the US. Has Trump found a sucker?
What is the UK going to lose or give up in return? What damage is that useless PM and his equally awful cabinet going to do to these countries to keep the “special relationship” with such a dangerous freak?
That has been sais for decades.
If it is really going to happen now, you are right.
In a recent podcast, Steve Keen talked about Trump’s tariffs aim to eliminate the U.S. trade deficit. He suggested that perhaps instead of pushing back, America’s trading partners could revive Keynes’s idea of an international trading currency—the bancor. But this time, rebrand it as the Trumcor. Pitch it to Trump with the line: “It’s a currency like no one has ever seen before.” He’d love it.
I wouldn’t
I have already suggested bancor here
If you look at aspects of Starmers progress then, unfortunately, you have an answer. Firstly, the censorship and suppression of the left wing in Labour; secondly the litany of lies during and after his accession; thirdly the company he and his third rate minds keep, the global corporates and right wing companies; fourthly the covert support given to the USA, either in the Middle East or internally with military/financial matters. We are already a de facto vassal state in my opinion, having been so for many years, but the rise of actual fascism in the USA has our nation in peril from both the USA and paid actors within (by USA, Russia, Saud or Israel).
“And the goal of wealth maximisation, which is very obviously only possible for a few, is promoted as if it should be the goal of all'”
Pet owners have noticed how fees are increasing as the small businesses get taken over. It seems to be happening with Funeral Directors, Dentists and other local professional services.
I assume this is because of hedge funds looking for good returns. Neo liberalism commodifies things that have values beyond the profit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62zzegvk33o Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet.
“I assume this is because of hedge funds looking for good returns.”
And private equity.
https://thecounterbalance.substack.com/p/how-finance-drives-monopoly
I posted this link to Lawrence O’Donnell’s segment on Trump versus Harvard on another of your blogs today – because at heart they’re all about fascism or aspects and features of it. So here it is again. Anyone who find the 20 minutes to watch it wont’ be disappointed.
https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/lawrence-on-trump-attacking-the-rule-of-law-we-are-all-harvard-we-are-all-abrego-garcia-237412933750
Thanks
Apologies for delay – I wash olding it back to watch it, but have not had time.
It is to Harvard and MIT’s credit that they have told Trump to get lost.
And it is to Columbia and other’s lasting disgrace that they rolled over. Their entire leadership will have to go.
At least we are seeing some law firms stand up to Trump. The behaviour of the others serves as a reminder of why there are so many cruel jokes about lawyers coming out of America.
Agreed
There is an interesting piece by Sheila Heen – a professor of practice at Harvard Law School, ironically, who specialises in negotiation – explaining why the big law firms who have capitulated to Trump’s unreasonable demands may think they are making a rational tactical decision to minimise short term damage, but are really making a strategic error that compromises them for the longer term.
In short, she classes Trump as a bully who uses (and responds to) power as a negotiating tactic, not positions based on interests or rights. So the correct response is to push back.
Link to the PDF here: https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2025/04/advice-to-law-firms-in-dealing-with-trump-do-not-negotiate.html
I agree with her
I’d recommend any interested parties to read the PDF. It is quite short but strongly argued.
Another point (echoing Niemoller) is that those standing by and saying nothing in the hope of avoiding being targeted will find themselves similarly alone when Trump comes for them.
It is well worth reading