Back in 1687, when the Magdallen College President at the University of Oxford died, a conflict arose between King James II and the Fellows over who had the right to pick his successor. As per historical records, the monarch’s initial nominee was Anthony Farmer, who at the time met with little favour.

The scholars complained about his moral character and according to nineteenth-century historian Macaulay’s summary, “he generally reeled into his college at night speechless with liquor… was celebrated for having headed a disgraceful riot at Abingdon… and had received money from dissolute young gentlemen commoners for services such as it is not good that history should record”, and elected John Hough instead.

What once began as a localised dispute gained wider significance in a conflict between Oxford and James II. According to writer Louis Morris, James’ high-handed actions saw him as a tyrant who was willing to do everything in trampling over all over his subjects’ legal privileges in order to forcibly impose Catholicism.

Morris further explains how the dispute over Magdalen was so damaging because it suggested no-one was safe;

“Even moderate Protestants from a conservative, royalist institution might lose their positions if the king took against them. Combined with other controversies (such as the prosecution of seven bishops who disagreed with his policies), the scandal helped to push much of the king’s traditional support base – the Tories, a party literally founded in order to defend his claim to the throne – into a reluctant alliance with his ex-Parliamentarian foes”.

The current conflict between the Harvard university administration and the Trump administration reminds one of the efforts made by James II on Oxford in another era for ensuring stifling conformism. This time the fight seems to be more in terms of discouraging Harvard to have international students at its campus and preserve, practice and preach “American values” for “American students”.

The Department of Homeland Security in a letter has accused Harvard of ensuring an “unsafe” campus environment for Jews, promoting “pro Hamas sympathisers”, and employing “racial” diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies. While sharing this letter on her X handle, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem accused the university of “also coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus”.

The Trump administration’s actions in the current context are no doubt coercive, deeply condemnable and merit (quite rightly) juridical intervention as a constitutional safeguarding measure to avoid legislative or executive overreach, as visible in the current case.

At the same time, the singular attack on Harvard, as part of a more general attack on other liberal, elite institutions in the US by Trump has been part of what can be conceived is a radical response to the nature of issues US’ higher education scenario-and in more general most liberal, elite institutions face.

Complex crisis that universities today face

As argued in context to the recent crises being faced by higher education institutions across the globe, in particular to the US, most liberal, elite universities over the last few decades, teaching social sciences, have allowed campus spaces to perhaps become too extensively politicised, triggering an appeal for pause and a need of serious academic reforms perhaps at all levels, which have been due and long pending.

There are three immediate crises that come to one’s mind which universities do face in higher education across the board. In a universalistic sense, they are axiomatic now and no longer restricted to just the US but to private institutions more in general, across the board.

One, is of the increasing lack of student-motivation to either attend classes regularly or be able to speak freely inside classrooms which inhibit their views, thoughts (independent of what they may represent), and creative expression.

Second, academic instructors or professors (of course not all) in majority are increasingly driven to act/speak/teach from disposition of their political orientation or an acquired political-self-identity and less from a position of scholarship which contributes to student polarisation (or inhibition of expression).

Third, is a crisis of accountability that administrators face on their own where decision making or policy-calls, over time has become increasingly less deliberative and more authoritative in nature. The opaqueness in which committees’ function or communicate decisions contribute to a crisis of accountability that institutions face.

These happenings as crises in varying degrees collectively circumscribe values of creativity, autonomy but a commitment to encouraging scientific temper, relational truth in context to higher education institutions, independent of their elite or liberal status, to practice or preach their own principles in most cases.

The crisis is also not unique or one without precedent in history.

When universities were administered and operationalised earlier as religious institutions, as seen in case of Oxford, there was an imposition then of religious orthodoxy or beliefs on faculty and students at the time contributing towards stifling conformism.

Declarations drawn in commitment to certain (religious) beliefs guided not by critical reason but by orthodoxy, remained counterproductive to science, discovery, and truth-exploration at the time. That’s what James II attempted to do with forcing his appointments at Oxford.

Oxford and Cambridge, ever since their creation to up until almost the 19^th century faced some of these issues, which shaped their decisions on faculty hiring, student-admission, graduation etc. aligned with the principal agreement in faith to the acknowledgment of certain religious beliefs as part of their practiced university culture, class and administrative ecosystem.

As each of these institutions started to move away from that practice over time, encouraging students to more freely speak their mind (with administrators sometimes knowing they may be wrong), express themselves, creating a necessitating culture of taking risk, allowing them to try, experiment, challenge one’s peers and professors, these institutions gradually evolved to become more independent centres of exceptional knowledge creation, of knowing and producing some of the best, most creative minds across disciplines in the 20^th century.

A grave extent of excessive politicisation and stifling conformism at/on campuses or inside classrooms endanger a similar threat which need to discentivised as much as possible. Students need to be able to ask questions or challenge professors the way they want – no matter the wrong they might be implying sometimes by speech – because having the freedom to do so is vital.

Trump administrations draconian threats are counterproductive

When political ideology, as argued here, either on the extreme of the academic political left or the right takes centre stage or comes before one’s commitment to the truth that must be solicited by academic pursuit, or scholarly reason, a gradual, yet inevitable dilution of embedded academic standards, rigour in scholarship both, taught and researched, may subsequently be realised.

The Trump administration's combative and coercive attitude – demonstrated by its draconian threats to seize oversight of academic functions, similar to James II, is surely counterproductive and may backfire (as it did for the English King), but this may be seen as part of a radical, even unnecessary response to the crises brewing within elite institutions that have polarised people against them.

Hopefully, this moment of conflict, as unwarranted it may be, can also start, at least within these campuses, a space and voice for internalising a deeper process of critical scrutiny, addressing some of the crises, while taking the moment to fight an unjust state weaponised administrative-onslaught with simultaneous, cumulative internal reforms.

What may be helpful to gradually encourage is a Socratic-critical dialogue-based mode of instructive learning, administrative functionality and student engagement. It is fundamentally essential in core practice of educative learning imparted both within classrooms and across campuses – and we, as academics, need to protect (and safeguard) this impartial approach as a voice to advocating for critical reason and dialogue in scholarship, not beliefs.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.