The Cancer-Cure Conundrum in Higher Ed

Once again, Trump has identified the problem but his antidote is toxic and Democrats offer no cure.

Good morning. On the menu today:

• The Lede

• Ask me everything

• Morning Read-In

---

Before reflexively rejecting President Trump’s issues agenda because his solutions to America’s problems are odious, these are the kinds of tough questions we need to ourselves:

• Why are U.S. universities so dependent on government money?

• Are the reasons rooted in threats and opportunities that are now outdated? Or at least not as threatening and beneficial as they once were?

• If Trump was never president and there was somebody in office you liked, would you be open to cutting or reprioritizing some university funding?

Before answering those questions with ruthless honesty, read this New York Times story titled, “How Universities Became So Dependent on the Federal Government.”

For over eight decades, American universities and the federal government wound themselves into an ever tighter embrace.

The United States wanted to build the most powerful bombs and cure the worst diseases. It wanted to be first to explore the outer edges of the solar system. It wanted to grow more efficient crops. And so, it offered millions, and then billions, to researchers at universities across the country — in Cambridge, Mass., and Berkeley, Calif., but also in Minnesota, Indiana and Mississippi.

The schools took the money. They built the best labs and attracted top-notch professors and students from around the world. They also became increasingly and, at first, somewhat warily beholden to the whims of politicians in Washington.

Now, this mutually beneficial bargain has started to unravel.

At the risk of triggering my subscribers, I must ask whether the bargain between government and higher education should unravel — or at least be adjusted for new realities. Not the way Trump is doing it (haphazardly and with no thought given to the consequences) or why he’s doing it (to “own the libs” and punish political enemies), but in a manner consistent with the needs of 21st century Americans.

Consider this another in a series of posts warning liberals not to conflate the cancer with the cure.

The cancer in this metaphor is the status quo, specifically the social institutions and related policies that a supermajority of voters don’t trust and want overhauled. They include: porous borders; economic policies, alliances, and trends that moved jobs offshore; national security alliances that rely too much on U.S. spending and were used to justify failed wars; some DEI policies that might go too far, even for people deeply committed to diversity, equity and inclusion; disconnected and corrupt politicians; and arrogant, profit-driven media companies. The most vilified institution is government itself, a bloated and dysfunctional enterprise that hasn’t been overhauled in nearly a century. And for all of its strengths, the higher education system in America is an unhealthy patient.

The cure is reform. New ways to run an economy; manage national security; control immigration; advance the march to true justice and equality; inject competition into a political system monopolized by two feckless parties; and make government smaller, faster, and more relevant to the lives of Americans.

Trump identified the cancer while Democrats dodged it. That’s why he’s president. But his idea of a cure is not reform; it’s self-benefit. And his prescriptions are cruelty, retribution, and authoritarianism.

Let’s get back to the New York Times story and ask some tough question about university grants.

President Trump and many Republicans say they will use the threat of deep funding cuts to rein in out-of-control progressive activism on campus, which they believe has driven universities away from their mission to educate and mold better citizens. With confidence in higher education waning among Americans, the president also believes he has public opinion on his side.

Again, Trump has diagnosed a cancer — the public’s declining faith in higher education.

American universities spent $60 billion in federal money on research and development in fiscal year 2023 alone. That’s more than 30 times as much as what they spent in the early 1950s, adjusted for inflation, when the research university system was just beginning to grow into the vast industry it is today.

Do we need to be spending 30 times as much as we did 80 years ago? Really?

There is no other system like it in the world, in part because of the sprawling, decentralized nature of American higher education. Unlike many other countries, the United States never had a national university. And the founders left matters of education to the states.

Maybe we shift resource to a creating a national university? Or some other big ideas like reduced tuition rates?

Dismantling the system as Mr. Trump and many conservatives seem intent on doing could partially rewind the clock to when the federal government largely left research in the hands of the private sector. The work was done at foundations created by wealthy families such as the Carnegies and Rockefellers or in the laboratories of Dupont, Westinghouse and other corporations.

Maybe we rely on government less and tech billionaires more? They could donate vast fortunes like the Gilded Age titans did. Or we could tax the hell out of them.

The Trump administration doesn’t appear to be finished.

Though Ivy League institutions have borne the brunt of the retaliation, public universities make up roughly half of the broader list of schools under review. They include the University of Washington, the University of California, San Diego, and the University of Michigan.

And they all have a lot of money on the line: Each spent more than $1 billion in federal research funding in fiscal year 2023.

The cancer (the public’s distrust in higher education) and Trump’s antidote (wanton destruction) cannot be solved by defending the status quo, which is what the Democrats do. The cure is reform and my last question is this: Who’s up for it?

---

Ask Me Everything

What do you think of the university-government alliance. Is it untouchable? Does it need a relook? If so, how would you change it? And where the hell have Democrats been on this issue for the last generation? Guarding the status quo at a time when voters demand and deserve positive change?

What else is on your mind? As you might have noticed, I’ve got an opinion on anything. And it’s almost time for our next My Reply column.

---

The Morning Read-In

I’m proud of the “Morning Read-In,” which is exclusive to my paid subscribers. Every morning, I read a dozen or so media website and social media feeds to curate via the Substack Chat feature a handful of the most compelling stories on politics, culture, communications, and life.

I try to mix it up. And I try to add something unique to the stories in a micro-essay style, something drawn from my 25 years in Washington as a journalist and my life now, back home in Detroit where I am a communications consultant and grandfather. Today the stories included:

• This morning’s Supreme Court ruling on the El Salvador deportation case.

• Sen. Chris Van Hollen’s strategic misstep on the El Salvador deportation case.

• The Atlantic’s case for laugher at a time of government overreach.

• An exclusive preview of an op-ed and video I submitted about autism.

Paid subscribers call the “Morning Read-In” their MRI. I like to think of it as a daily pre-dawn examination of the American soul.

A paid subscription is just $5/month or $50/year. It gets you all of my newsletters plus the MRI, which is twice as much content as available for free. It gets you the knowledge that you’re supporting independent journalism when the First Amendment is under assault from the government and media C-suites.

It gets me the freedom to keep doing this. Please click the orange button.