From Academia, a ‘Primal Scream.’

Watch in real time, as American higher ed goes on offense to defend itself.

The American higher-ed establishment, as of April 23, 2025. (Kirk Douglas in Spartacus, 1960, Corbis via Getty Images.)

We’re not far enough into the current Trump era to know how this chapter ends. But nearly 100 days in, we know these things:

-That the only effective limits on Trump/Doge/Vought outrages and demands can come from people acting together.

-But that before people can act together, someone needs to go first.

This is what academics call the Collective Action Problem. In pop-culture terms, it’s known as “I am Spartacus.” The first Spartacus needs to step up and speak up, being exposed alone to all potential risks, before knowing whether any others will join in and support him.

I’ve chronicled before examples of “Spartacus” declarations successfully turning into real movements—or sputtering out and leaving Spartacus on his own and vulnerable. The most visible and encouraging recent examples involve the American public showing up—at Congressional town halls, for special elections, at demonstrations, as citizens. The most discouraging involve the total collapse into subservience of one whole political party.

What seemed a Spartacus-style bit of bravado, just one day ago, has already become an unmistakable movement. It is changing practically by the hour. More people should be aware of it, support it, and spread its example.

In involves a “public statement,” or open letter from academic leaders, which appeared yesterday morning on the site of the American Association of Colleges and Universities, or AAC&U. You can read it here.

Now, the back story and why it matters.

---

‘People realized it was time to stand up.’

It has been nine days since Harvard’s leaders changed the landscape of Trump-era extortion by saying Hell, No! to his sweeping demands for fealty. No matter how this whole American chapter ends, Harvard’s declaration last week will be an important part of the narrative. The country’s oldest and most renowned university gave cover to others. It answered the question that its former president Larry Summers had asked: If an institution as rich and powerful as Harvard cannot stand up to Trump, then who can?

But until Harvard’s bold announcement on April 14, its own stance had been equivocal.¹ And other declarations of independence from educational leaders had been few. Notable exceptions, as I’ve mentioned, came from Wesleyan, Princeton, Rutgers, and a few others.

During that uncertain time, a number of educational leaders were working behind the scenes to coordinate a united stand. Some of them were university presidents; some held other leadership positions; some led scholarly groups; some were faculty members. I’ve talked with several of them this week, all of whom I’ll refer to as “she.”

Among these efforts was a joint project by two scholarly organizations. One was the same AAC&U whose website now hosts the statement. The other was the 245-year-old American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Through this month these groups held virtual “convenings” among university leaders. They drafted, and circulated, and revised, and re-circulated potential group statements. They sought and created representation from every part of America’s diverse higher-ed establishment: Publics and privates. Large and small. Two-year community institutions and world-famous research centers. Faith-based and strictly secular. Regional and global. The whole menagerie.

And in these past few weeks, as daily pressure mounted on higher ed overall, the people involved crafted a document that large numbers of academic leaders could all agree on—a near miracle itself. (As anyone involved in “open letters” can attest.) Reaching agreement showed prowess in academic diplomacy and in wordcraft. But also, as several university presidents have told me, it was a sign of desperation and urgency among academic leaders.

“People realize that it is time,” one of these presidents told me today. “People know that we need to stand up.”

---

‘We speak with one voice…’

What is the statement they agreed to? It begins this way, with emphasis added:

As leaders of America’s colleges, universities, and scholarly societies, we speak with one voice against the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education.

And, less than 350 words later, it ends:

The price of abridging the defining freedoms of American higher education will be paid by our students and our society. On behalf of our current and future students, and all who work at and benefit from our institutions, we call for constructive engagement that improves our institutions and serves our republic.

In between it acknowledges the shortcomings of higher ed, the need for legitimate oversight, the importance of budgetary caution, and other “to be sure” points. It’s the farthest thing from a fire-breathing statement, which Harvard’s was last week. For those as learned as the university leaders, even its title— “A Call for Constructive Engagement”—will bring an echo of the Reagan-era term for negotiating with the apartheid regime in South Africa.

But it was absolutely clear on its main point: That the government has gone too far, and higher ed needs to stand up, or succumb.

“It says we’re not perfect, and we know we’re not perfect,” one president told me. “But it is time to get people to pay attention to what is happening.”

She continued:

Almost every institution is doing things that matter locally, regionally, globally. Things that matter to the past, the present, the future of this country and our society.

This is almost a primal scream.

“With every day that goes on, I am feeling that this is harder than the pandemic for higher ed,” a university president told me. She was referring to visa cancellations, “telling international students they’re not welcome,” disruption in research grants, the portrayal of colleges and universities as the enemy.

“That was an act of God,” she said, referring to the pandemic-shutdown years. “Everyone was in it together. And the government was on our side. But now…”

As academics, all of the people I spoke with are by definition writers. Each of them said she might change this or that part of the group letter. As nearly any person would with nearly any joint statement.

But they signed on. Some of them thinking they might be part of a tiny, controversial minority. Some thinking they might have company of 50, 80, as many as 100 co-signers when the message went live, which happened yesterday. But all of them thinking, the time has come.

---

A movement develops.

As it happened, there were around 180 signers for the “public statement” by the time I first saw it on the AAC&U site yesterday morning.

-A few hours later, there were 240.

-By last night, it was 270.

-By this morning, it was over 300.

-Late Wednesday afternoon, as I type, it has reached 364. Or more than twice the original number, after just one day. (For reference: the total membership in the American Association of Colleges and Universities is just over 800.)

Update Thursday, April 24: This morning the list stands at 403. Update-update: As of 3pm Eastern, it is 435.

If you go to the AAC&U site, you can see the list of signatories, refreshed every few hours. And what I find even more impressive than the increasing numbers is the incredible range of institutions represented in solidarity here.

If I start mentioning their names, I’ll never stop. So I’ll put it in personal terms:

-My father’s college alma mater, tiny Ursinus in Pennsylvania, has signed on. And my mother’s, Tufts.

-Every one of the schools that I and my three siblings have attended for undergraduate or graduate degrees has signed: Scripps, the University of Redlands, Santa Clara, UC Berkeley, Cornell, Harvard.

Moving beyond our family: Northwestern is there, and Notre Dame. Nine campuses of the University of California system, from the oldest, in Berkeley, to the newest, in Merced. MIT and American University and San Diego State. Colby College and the University of Washington. Cal State San Bernardino and the University of Baltimore and the University of Dayton. Vassar and Drake. UVA and Duke. Georgetown and Central Wyoming College. Literally hundreds more.

Really, start going down the list, and I predict you won’t stop. You’ll notice who is there—and in many cases be gratified. You’ll also notice who’s not.

The most obvious absence is big public institutions in conservative states—as with the University of Texas-Austin, where Deb got her graduate degree. “This process was gut-wrenching for a lot of people,” the president of a private university told me. “But especially for these presidents of public institutions in states where they feel censored and constrained by the politics within their state.”

For the record: A large number of the country’s “elite” institutions have signed on. The president of Stanford did not. He said that the university’s previous note of support for Harvard should suffice.

---

And what happened to the university presidents after they signed?

“I’d say it’s been 40-50,” one president told me today.

I said, you mean 40/50 positive versus negative?