Leonie interviews Prof. Julian Vasquez Heilig about the authoritarian threats being made by the Trump administration to states, districts and schools, demanding that they eliminate their diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs or lose federal funding; as well as to colleges and universities, to not only eliminate their diversity programs, but also toe the administration line iby controlling who they admit, who they hire, and what they teach.
Julian Vasquez Heilig's blog, Cloaking Inequity, https://cloakinginequity.com/
US Dept of Education "Dear Colleague" letter, February 14, 2025, https://www.ed.gov/media/document/dear-colleague-letter-sffa-v-harvard-109506.pdf
US Dept of Education requesting districts certify compliance with Title VI, April 3, 2025, https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/ed-requires-k-12-school-districts-certify-compliance-title-vi-and-students-v-harvard-condition-of-receiving-federal-financial-assistance
Des Moines Register, Fearing federal DEI policies, Waterloo schools withdrew from African American reading event, March 12, 2025
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/local/2025/03/11/waterloo-schools-withdraw-african-american-read-in-trump-dei/81949713007/
NY State letter to US Dept of Education, rejecting request for district certification on DEI, April 4, 2025 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25879984-040425-dmb-to-ocr-re-request-for-title-vi-certification/
District Administration, States now falling in line with DEI order; resistance remains, April 16, 2025
https://districtadministration.com/article/one-big-state-is-vowing-to-defy-trumps-dei-order/
ACLU, Information about ACLU and NEA lawsuit challenging the Department of Education’s Feb. 14, 2025, Dear Colleague Letter,
https://www.aclu-nh.org/en/cases/nea-and-nea-nh-v-us-department-education
NAACP lawsuit, https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/001-Complaint-NAACP-v.-U.S.-Dept-of-Educ.-et-al_.pdf
WMUR, Federal judge considering whether to stop enforcement of Dept. of Education letter regarding DEI policies, April 17, 2025
https://www.wmur.com/article/new-hampshire-aclu-education-dept-dei-lawsuit/64515739
U.S. Department of Education press release, Letters to 60 Universities Under Investigation for Antisemitic Discrimination and Harassment, March 10, 2025 https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-educations-office-civil-rights-sends-letters-60-universities-under-investigation-antisemitic-discrimination-and-harassment
The Guardian, Columbia University caves to demands to restore $400m from Trump administration, March 21, 2025
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/21/columbia-university-funding-trump-demands
Michael Roth, NYT oped, Trump Is Selling Jews a Dangerous Lie, April 7, 2025,
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/07/opinion/trump-jewish-antisemitism-wesleyan.html
Trump administration letter to Harvard threatening loss of funding, April 11, 2025
https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2025/04/Letter-Sent-to-Harvard-2025-04-11.pdf
Alan Garber, Harvard President, The Promise of American Higher Education, April 14, 2025
https://www.harvard.edu/president/news/2025/the-promise-of-american-higher-education/
Chronicle of Higher Education, These Faculty Senates Are Trying to Band Together to Stand Up to Trump, April 14, 2025
https://www.chronicle.com/article/these-faculty-senates-are-trying-to-band-together-to-stand-up-to-trump
ABC News, Trump admin freezes billions in funding to Harvard University after rejecting demands, April 15, 2025
https://abcnews.go.com/US/harvard-university-rejects-trump-administrations-demands-risking-billions/story?id=120799115
Fortune, Harvard’s defiance of Trump’s ‘authoritarian incursion’ supported by over 80 past and present college and university presidents, April 15, 2025 https://fortune.com/2025/04/15/harvard-defiance-trump-supported-college-university-presidents/?abc123
Bryan Alexander's blog, “The professors are the enemy”: J.D. Vance on higher education, July 18, 2024
https://bryanalexander.org/politics/the-professors-are-the-enemy-j-d-vance-on-higher-education/
Transcript of Talk out of School with Julian Vasquez Heilig
April 20, 2025
Hello everyone. My name is Leonie Haimson. Welcome to our show, Talk out of School, on WBAI radio 99.5 FM, and wbai.org, where we focus on issues affecting public schools here in NYC, the state level and nationally. Our show is also available for download as a podcast .
A few weeks ago, I interviewed Bob Kim of the Education Law Center about their lawsuit to try to reverse the staffing cuts being made at the US Dept of Ed to their Civil Rights division, research department and other offices, as well as the Executive Order issued by Trump confirming his determination to dismantle the Department of Education completely.
Tonight we’re going to focus on the direct threats being made by the Trump administration to states, districts and schools, demanding that they eliminate their diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs or lose federal funding.
We will also discuss similar but even more authoritarian threats to colleges and universities, to not only eliminate their diversity programs, but also toe the administration line in many other ways, by controlling who they admit, who they hire, and what and how they teach, or risk the losing billions in federal grants.
Leonie Haimson: So my special guest tonight is Julian Vasquez Heilig. Julian has held many high academic posts around the country, and most recently was Provost at Western Michigan University, but stepped down from that post to become professor of Educational leadership, research and technology. He did this, as Diane Ravitch put it, to enjoy his freedom of speech as a tenured faculty member.
We may get into that a little bit later. Julian also has a great blog, which I highly recommend, called cloaking inequity. I'll put the link to the blog in the resource section of the podcast is simplecast.com.
Full disclosure. Julian serves on the board of the network for public education as I do. Julian thanks so much for coming on Talk out of school.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : Oh, it's so glad to join you, and to have this opportunity to meet with your listeners.
Leonie Haimson: So first, let's focus on the threat to K 12 schools. I spoke to Bob Kim at our last show about their lawsuit against the cuts being made.
But there's a whole other aspect. Of this, which is. the threats surrounding the issue of DEI. On February 14.th the Department of Education sent a letter to schools and colleges to say their diversity programs claiming these programs violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and equal protection clause of the Constitution. Shortly thereafter they launched a portal called an anti-DEI portal, asking parents. To report Divisive ideologies and indoctrination that was supposedly happening at their children's schools. You wrote a piece for your blog, urging parents to instead file complaints against actual discrimination. If it exists in their school against black and low income students, students with disabilities or LGBTQ plus students, can you explain your strategy.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : Yeah. So first, I I think it's important to say. Uh, and understand uh the strategy that's at work.And so. It's really a blitzkrieg of actions, and for some of us uh, it just seems overwhelming and difficult. So I think it's important to understand that there is really an attempt. To change the Overton window. Now What is the Overton window? It's the range of policies and beliefs that are politically acceptable. In any given moment. So I think that's the 1st thing to say about. The broader strategy here is that there is an attempt to change. What is acceptable.
After George Floyd was murdered. There was a conversation about DEI, and that Overton window shifted on what it was that we would focus on. In our society, and I think the second piece is that this is a classic sales, tactic. Called door in the face.
Which is what we're going to do is we're going to be so extreme that we come to a compromise, and we make a deal, it's where we actually want to end up. So I think it's important to understand the sort of strategic focus sort of a Blitzkrieg.
The attempt to change the Overton window. And this. Door in the face. Strategy. And so that's what you see at work here.In K12 is, we are offering you a patronage system. If you Abolish DEI, then we won't cancel your Title. One funds right? Um, that is what's on offer for K. 12 schools.
And so there's been a long standing history. In the Us. Department of Education around civil rights. Uh, and the complaints that are filed with the OCR --Office of civil rights. I'll try not to use acronyms here. And so you had thousands of complaints around different civil rights issues. And so when the Trump administration came in.
My understanding out of DC. Is that. Those complaints were now Downgraded. These were not things that they were going to focus on. Instead, they were going to focus on what they call reverse discrimination. Complaints, and then they sent letters to universities, and they sent letters to K. 12. These sort of dear colleague, letters. These letters are what we expect. They don't hold the force of law, but if you don't, then. Engage in this patronage system. Then we're going to withdraw these. This funding.
Now, why is this even important? Because. What you see with the office of civil rights is, let's say you have a kid who has an issue with Their IAP at a at a school, and you've. You file a complaint with the Department of Education. Office of Civil Rights.
Well, the Department of Education is going to work on your behalf with that district, or with that Charter School, or with whoever. To find a resolution and do it in a shorter period of time. Now.
By moving that work to the Department of Justice. What you've done is you've now Extended. The process, because now it gets involved with litigation, or may get involved with litigation, may involve with the courts. And adjudication of your. Claim against the district or the Charter School, or whoever.
Your student may graduate before that comes to resolution. And so what they're essentially doing is not only are they. Pausing. What was already in the complaints that already taken place, but by changing the process and moving those complaints to the Department of Justice. Justice will be Deferred.
Leonie Haimson: Right, and we've seen how politicized the Department of Justice has been. We went over some of this stuff. With Bob Kim earlier.
But I also want to talk about the April 3rd letter that was sent specifically to State education departments demanding that they make their district chiefs certify that they had eliminated all their diversity programs.
And the deadline was within 10 days again claiming they violated title VI, or risk losing Federal funding, and claimed that educational institutions have toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the US Is built upon systemic and structural racism.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : Right. Right.
Leonie Haimson: Proponents of these discriminatory practices have contended to further justify them under the banner of identity, equity, and inclusion. Can you quickly explain what title Vi is and What the actual Dei programs in schools look like. And your view as to whether they actually violate that law.
What's interesting is that when Linda McMahon was being grilled at her nomination hearings for Secretary of Education. She was asked if this prohibition against Dei meant that black history couldn't be taught in schools, and she said that she didn't know.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : Right. Um. She also thinks that AI is a 1 so.
Leonie Haimson: Yeah.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : You know, that's just part of the. It's not a steak sauce, II assure you. Secretary, um, so title, title 6. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 Is the foundational federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race. Color.
Or national origin, and any programs or activities that receive. Financial assistance. And so what they are doing is they're using this framework of.
Reverse discrimination and saying that districts are out of compliance because either they're reverse, discriminating, or one of the other pieces of this is antisemitism. You are out of compliance and antisemitism. You see that more with the higher education conversations. But that's essentially what they're doing.
Leonie Haimson: Yeah, we'll get into that. But what can you give an example, for example, of an important diversity program within a K 12 school that is trying to address civil rights rather than undermine civil rights, as the Department of Education would claim.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : Yeah, I mean, there could be any number of things. I mean, there are. There are grants that are targeted towards. Students of color. You may have a community schools, grant you may have After school grants, and these grants. When they're submitted to the Us. Department of education, they'll say that they're about disparities, or they'll say that they're about inequities, although if you hear what's coming out of districts and what's coming out of higher education is that there's literally a list of banned words that you can't use in grants, and that's NSF. Us. Department of Education. I heard one list included the word Women.
Leonie Haimson: Yeah.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : If your grants had the word woman or women in it, then they were going to bring your Grants back. So that's going to impact funding for all of these different programs across the spectrum. Um uh, but I and I don't know what you talked about with your last guess. But New York simply said, Look, we're compliant with title 6. There will be no further, uh, uh. Information forthcoming, or signatures from districts we are in compliance with Title Vi. Now, I think this is what let me bring Harvard into this for just a second.
Leonie Haimson: No, we're going to get into Harvard later. All right. There's a whole separate section of this conversation that's going to talk about higher, Ed, so I'm glad you brought up the New York State Education Department.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : Okay. Okay. Sure.
Leonie Haimson: They were the 1st state, I believe, to rebel against this order. On April 4th they sent back a letter from the general counsel, saying that they refused to ask districts to certify that they've eliminated DEI, that schools already comply with Title 6. I'll put a link to the letter in the resource section because it's really great. They pointed out there are no Federal or State funds that prohibit the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : Sure. Yeah.
Leonie Haimson: That the Department of Education hasn't defined what practices it believes violate Title VI. And, moreover, that when Betsy Devos was Secretary of Education during Trump's 1st term she proclaimed that diversity and inclusion were, quote the cornerstones of high organizational performance and key elements for success.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : Yeah.
Leonie Haimson: So that was a pretty strong letter. I thought that pointed out the weaknesses in these claims that something about diversity and equity programs. Violated civil rights which, in a way, the Department of Education hasn't even argued or pointed out in what ways it may violate. Title 6. As of this week. It looks like at least 10 other States. So far Mostly blue States have signaled that they will join New York in defying these demands, saying that they already comply with all relevant city civil rights laws, and refusing They need to certify. What do you think of this pushback and the fact at the same time That other States have not joined in. However.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : Well, so I think the 1st thing to say. Is that there's this expectation of pre-compliance. Because the statements that they make are so incredibly general and broad. That the pushback has been. And you asked the question. Well give me some specifics of what they might Find offensive or objectionable. Um. And so my answer was, Well. All indications are it would be things that fit in within this band of program. But the thing is that they've been very reticent. To be specific.About what it is that is offensive to them and to me. That's a legal strategy: Because there and the political strategy. It's a political strategy, because. They. They want pre-compliance. They want folks like Um uh to say, oh, we can't possibly do this thing. Fill in the blank. Because the US Department of Education is putting pressure on us, but in reality.
What you have to do in response you asked for a strategic is you have to ask them to put into writing. What it is that they see as objectionable And why. Now, the reason why I wanted to bring up Harvard is because that's what Harvard did: To the trump administration.
Leonie Haimson: Right. We'll get to that specifically in a second. Several lawsuits have been filed against this executive order.
And as a result the Department of Education delayed the deadline for States to respond to the order until at least April 24th and on Thursday arguments were heard in New Hampshire Federal Court on a lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of the National Education Association that argues that the letter is so vague. That it violates due process, and the 1st amendment infringes on academic freedom and educators ability to teach. I'll put a link to the lawsuit filing in the resource section as well.
Judge Landya McCafferty said, she will decide whether to issue a preliminary injunction by next Thursday. The day that school States are supposed to file their certifications. Do you have any prediction on how the judge may rule?
Julian Vasquez Heilig : That's a good question. Um, I what's at stake here Is Academic freedom. What's at stake. Here is freedom of speech. What’s at stake here. Is, can the government Control. The curriculum . Control what what's happening in in K 12 schools. And so I use the power of the purse to do that. And in a patronage type system.
You know, there's multiple lawsuits that get at this core issue, whether it's K 12 or higher education, because this is uncharted territory. Uh, because typically Congress allocates, funds. To these different areas to uh different Secretaries. Across and then those decisions have been made In a non. Largely nonpolitical manner.
And so it's really uncharted territory. If you were to look at The range of cases. Regarding not just education, but birthright, citizenship, and many other things. the courts have been open to litigating. Because of the consequences. Or the impacts on education or. Are quite dramatic, so I would look if you're just asking me to provide a prediction. I think that there would probably be a stay. As it's litigated.
Leonie Haimson: So there's another lawsuit filed by the NAACP that also argues the letter and certification requirement are overly broad, vague, and violate due process. The 1st amendment and academic freedom, and specifically. Are intended to discriminate against Black students.
This one detailed some of the harm that's already been done. They give an example of a district in Iowa that withdrew from the State’s Annual African American Read-in and actually required teachers to return over 800 copies of a book intended for students entitled “All because you matter.” The book reminds the reader how much black and brown children matter, that they've always mattered and always will.
But, according to press reports, the Government argued yesterday in court. That the Administration's policy did not prevent a school from teaching about civil rights, history, or racism. What mattered, he said, was how students were treated in classes. And whether they faced racial discrimination.
So again. It sounds like they're kind of muddying the waters here.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : Yeah.
Leonie Haimson: And possibly pulling back. I mean, it seems like they're going to have to try to define more clearly in court what they mean by diversity Equity inclusion programs that supposedly violate civil rights. But we have yet to hear a clear statement on that issue. And really, I think you're right. That The threat, in many cases in an undefined way, is meant to scare school districts, to do things that are clearly not against the law. For just for fear that it might be deemed as such by the by the Department of Education, and by the Trump Administration, and cause them to either lose funding or have to go to court to defend themselves.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : So two thoughts on that. First, I think there are some districts that truly. Their… the success of students. Of all backgrounds is, is not the top priority.
And so these are these are things that they didn't want to do anyways. And so. This is something that allows them opens the door to say, we can't possibly do this thing. Because The current political administration will allow us to do that, and I.
Leonie Haimson: Gives them an excuse essentially.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : Yeah, I think that's unfortunate. But I do think it's important to say. That. Diversity, equity, and inclusion has been framed as this boogeyman, this political boogeyman. But I think it's important for us to understand. In just very simple terms. What this work does. What diversity, equity, inclusion work does is it says we want all students that come to our campus.K, 12 or higher ed. To be successful. And we want to use research based practices and other approaches that help our students graduate. That help our students have success. And so this idea that DEI is about reverse discrimination. I made this point on Democracy Now two weeks ago. That is not what's happening with diversity, equity, inclusion.
What's happening with this work is us saying that we look. We could see the data. We can see that African American males have some challenges in schools.
We can see that immigrant students or special Ed students have challenges in schools. And so we are going to do everything we can to create. That Climate. So students can be successful. And so what's Honestly, going to happen Is in places where diversity, equity, and inclusion are deemed problematic.
And are paused or canceled. You will see historically marginalized students Do worse, and that's the travesty of this work.
Leonie Haimson: So now let's move on to the equally, if not even more, devastating threats to Higher Ed, that we've been hinting at all along. One after another the Trump administration has claimed the right not only to force higher ed institutions to eliminate their diversity programs.
But also they threaten to cut their funding if they don't allow them to essentially determine what is taught in their courses, how to discipline students, and worse. You've written that history will not be kind to those who stayed silent while the mission of universities is dismantled.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : Yeah.
Leonie Haimson: Can you describe the demands made to Columbia University first, and how they essentially caved in when the threat was made to withhold 400 million dollars in Federal funding.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : So I I think the 1st thing to say here is. That These are echoes of history. What you're seeing in higher education right now is a part of an authoritarian playbook. There's just no other way. To say it Which is that this is what's happened in Hungary. This is what happened in Russia. This is what's happened In China. Which is that governments are trying to control What happens in higher education. Because they see it as a political Threat.
But universities are supposed to be the place where the difficult conversations happen.Where knowledge is created, they shouldn't be politically micromanaged. And so under pressure, what Columbia agreed to was stricter protest. Regulations, things like protesters can't wear masks. A legally binding consent decree to enforce Federal oversight of the University. They wanted to put the Middle Eastern studies program in what they call. A receivership.
Which is, does that mean? And you've got to think about what precedents are set as an academic leader. I'm always thinking about. What precedent am I setting with this decision.
And so, if the Federal Government can tell you. We're not going to give you the money unless you cancel your Middle Eastern studies. so is African American studies. Next is liberal arts. Next, because one of the things that you see In countries with autocratic governments is they don't want universities to have liberal arts colleges, because that's where a lot of the critical thinking. And critical research comes from.
And so once we say, once you succumb to political pressure and say, you can't have Middle Eastern studies. Does that mean black studies is next Latinx studies is next queer studies is next, and so this is unprecedented. Unprecedented. This is even. A step beyond what we saw with McCarthyism.
Leonie Haimson: Yeah, I'm going to we're going to go into that in a minute, too. Actually, they Ordered Columbia to put its Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies departments. Under the control of a new official who would control the review process for hiring non-tenured staff And for approving curricular changes. All in the name of stopping anti-semitism. This, the school agreed to that, and also said, It's searching for new faculty members to ensure quote intellectual diversity.
Now. This is a result of the fact that the Trump Administration has appointed a so-called anti-semitism task force That has warned at least 60 other universities of possible action over supposed alleged failure to comply with Federal civil rights laws related to anti-semitism. I looked up the members of this task force that trump appointed. And it's led by a black attorney named Leo Terrell Who is an Ex Fox news contributor and a former OJ Simpson, supporter who argues that systematic racism against nonwhite people does not exist. Any thoughts on that?
Julian Vasquez Heilig : Well, I mean I don't I? Again trying to change the Overton window. Um. I was called the N-word on the streets of New York last week, so. The idea that racism or systemic racism. Doesn't exist? I don't think is something that I even need to address.
So I think it's important as we think about What's happening here is that Is, that they'll just keep going a step further. A step further. A step further, and I and what you're seeing now Is. People finally starting to stand up. You saw Michigan. Pull back on their diversity work. Just a couple of weeks ago.: But now that Harvard has decided to stand up, and Princeton.
Leonie Haimson: All right, let's hold off on Harvard again.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : I'm getting so excited I want to jump into that.
Leonie Haimson: Yeah, I know. But we have a whole section on Harvard. So I'm excited about that as well.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : Alright! Alright! Okay.
Leonie Haimson: I'm actually an alumnus, and I contributed to Harvard for the 1st time yesterday, because I was so excited about that.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : I love it.
Leonie Haimson: But um, the President of Wesleyan, Michael Roth, who himself Jewish.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : It may not be tax deductible, though it may not be tax deductible. Can I say one other thing about the Jewish piece, which is that the Jewish scholars, just in response to the last question.
Leonie Haimson: Yeah, sure.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : The Jewish scholars have spoken out. Against This framing As anti-semitism.
Leonie Haimson: Right.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : Right. They've made it pretty clear. That they don't want to be utilized as a cudgel In this political conversation. And so I think it's important for all historically marginalized communities, especially communities of color Because anti-semitism is. A part of the broader umbrella of issues within racism.
And so we can't just be. We can't just be interested in Anti-semitism. That that's very important work.: We have to be anti-racist. Which covers.
All the different types of xenophobia. Which is prominent, as in our conversations about ICE right now. And so yes, anti-semitism is important. But what the Jewish community has told me. And what they're talking about publicly is that they don't want to be a cudgel in this sort of political conversation, so I hope that addresses your last question.
Leonie Haimson: Right. So the President of Wesleyan Michael Roth, who himself is Jewish, wrote an Op-ed in the New York Times saying that Trump is using anti-semitism as a smokescreen. Quote a cover for a wide range of agendas that have nothing to do with the welfare of Jewish people, and that all of these agendas from dismantling basic government functions to crushing the independence of educational organizations to criminalizing political speech endanger the principles and institutions that have actually made this country great, and he may, in fact, be making anti-semitism worse. Jews who applaud the Administration's crackdown will soon find that they do so at their peril.
And so I think that this was the, you know, a very strong, eloquent rebuttal of the fact, because if Jews are being used an excuse to basically destroy our universities. Then anti-semitism will be wrongly thought of as something that aids in authoritarianism, which is something that I think Jews more than anyone would want to Prevent.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : Yeah, when I when I talked about this, I talked. This as the freedom flip. What do I mean? Has the right really become the left? Because suddenly. the American right is claiming to be the vanguard of anti-discrimination. Framing any critique of Israel's anti-semitism. Advocating for colorblind policies. And then you have the left. Talking about academic freedom, freedom of speech. Yes, patriotism. But this is not Patriotism that's wrapped in a. Flag. But democracy defending patriotism. So I find it really interesting that we've had this what I'm calling the Freedom Flip. But I'm going to be honest with you.
I don't think the roles have really reversed. The right has just changed tactics. They're pursuing the same vision of control. And they've just figured out how to package it in this false language of equity and discrimination.
Leonie Haimson: Absolutely. So now let's get to Harvard, which you've been wanting to talk about from the very beginning of our show.
They made an even more aggressive demands of Harvard, the Trump administration, threatening cuts of more than 2 billion dollars unless they screen their international students for their ideology, screen their faculty members for their politics. Change their disciplinary processes, and submit independent audits of entire departments and schools, like the school of Divinity and School of public health, claiming they fuel, anti-semitism, or reflect ideological capture.
They also ordered that Harvard submit a report every 3 months on their implementation of these demands. You wrote on your blog that these demands, read less than a compliance memo, and more like an authoritarian manifesto.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : Yeah.
Leonie Haimson: Do you want to expand on that.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : Yeah. So they're. 1st there's an old Protest. Song, statement. Chant. The people united will never be defeated. Now. What's interesting about Harvard stand is. It's not just about. Harvard.
It's the fact that it's ignited. Sector: Right. So You had Eisengruber at Princeton already speaking out. Uh, you know, he's a constitutional lawyer, Ex. He's an expert in the Constitution. And so the thing is that by Harvard taking a stand. It has ignited A whole coalition of folks.
Leonie Haimson: So let's just recall what it is that Harvard did say. The President of Harvard, Alan Garber rejected these demands to the relief of many saying the university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights, and that 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.
So he did take a very strong stand, and so go on about how this has led to more schools Speaking out.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : That's right. Yeah. And what I said about that statement was. Because you think about what happened with the Harvard President last year, and so. There were DC. Operatives that accused her of plagiarism. Now she was cleared of that by the University. But she, still the 1st Black President female President, had to step down. And so.
They went from being a symbol of elite caution. To a beacon of institutional defiance. Now I want to say this. You asked me to be a prognosticator.
About uh one of the one of the lawsuits, you know. Just a few minutes ago. So let me just be a prognosticator here. Trump can't beat Harvard. He can't. Because What Harvard represents. Is a growing coalition not only of university leaders. But also the people with the stakeholders within the institutions. So trustees. The faculty senates right. And so by Harvard standing up because Harvard doesn't need. Trump's 2 billion dollars. And so, and they have. All the resources To fight this in court. All the way to the end.
But they'll also bring to the table. A whole other set Of actors. And so to me this was a strategic mistake. I understand. Why the administration. Was aiming at Ivy Leagues first. Because he felt that if, I believe, they felt that if the Ivy Leagues fell into line. That other institutions would too. But by Harvard. Departing from their institutional caution, their elite caution that we saw last year It's just a whole different environment. And what I hear from my Networks. Is that there'll be other institutions. Stepping up to join Harvard in the coming weeks.
Leonie Haimson: So just this week more than 60 current and former university presidents. Issued a joint statement in support of Harvard, and the importance of academic freedom.
And then Michigan, State. Proclaimed that they're joining with 18 universities and State colleges throughout the country something like a mutual aid pact. To quote, commit funding to a shared defense fund if they're similarly threatened by the trump administration.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : Yeah.
Leonie Haimson: And that these funds will be used to provide immediate and strategic support to any member institution. Under direct, political or legal.: Infringement. So I think that that reflects what you're talking about. This growing unified resistance.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : So let me. Yeah.
Leonie Haimson: Among higher ed institutions, both Ivy League Schools and State schools to fight this together.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : Yeah. So let me help with that. So that the mutual academic defense compact that's coming from the faculty. So the 18 institutions that they're talking about are the 18 big 10 institutions now? Not all of the big 10 institutions have signed on.
This began at Rutgers and then went to Indiana. Um, then Nebraska. And so Michigan State is actually the 4th institution in the Big 10 to call for this Big 10 compact to do a mutual defense compact. But you also have Massachusetts who signed on. And so this is actually a groundswell From the faculty. Calling for their leaders and for their trustees to create this mutual defense contact. Of course Faculty don't have the power to marshal the resources of the institution. That has to come from the trustees, the Provost, and the President.
But what the faculty are saying is that we don't want you to be silent. Neutrality is complicity. Because there are many institutions who are claiming neutrality. Who are staying silent. And so what you see with these mutual academic defense compacts. ThIs, you see, the stakeholders, the faculty and the staff and the institutions demanding that their leaders be change makers.
Leonie Haimson: So. In other words, the leaders and the trustees have not yet agreed to create this mutual aid pact.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : No, so this is a faculty movement. But as a leader you would think you'd want to listen to the faculty and the stakeholders in the institution. However, it's important to understand that the presidents of these institutions they were hired for a pedigree. That's different than what you are. What the demands are from a leader right now.
They were hired because they could run an institution that has a medical center, or they were hired because They have a Stanford or a Harvard. Background, or they were a dean or so courage wasn't in the job. Descriptions. Of these Presidents.
And so that's why you see some Presidents excelling like Eisgruber, or Garber at Harvard. But then you see other institutions who are shrinking. From courage.
Leonie Haimson: So. On your blog. You wrote about an incident that happened when you were a leader of a public university. And the Department of Defense threatened your institution with loss of funding. Can you describe what happened.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : Yeah, so I I can do that. And I have to be very careful with the contours of this conversation. But suffice it to say that For many years the Department of Defense has put pressure behind the scenes on institutions to not have relationships with Chinese. Universities. Which to me is problematic. So. Years ago, when I was at Kentucky. We had to close our you know, essentially, China's study center had a different name at the time. Um because of those kinds of pressures.
But behind the scenes the Department of Defense has continued over the years to put pressure, and I was put in this situation, where all of the funding would be canceled. If we didn't let go of a particular faculty member. So it's important to understand that these strategies that you see now with DEI.
They could be expanded so. The 1st sort of case of this had to do with China. Then they went to DEI. Then they went to student protests.
What's next? Could funding be contingent on whether you have unions on your campus. Or whether you have a liberal arts, college or a black studies program. So once you go down this slippery slope. Where politicians are citing what you can and cannot have, and we will or will not give you 2 billion dollars.
But you know, and the pendulum swings, I talked about in Forbes yesterday in a Mary Beth, Mary Beth Gassman article. That the pendulum swings. So if a Democratic President comes in in 4 years.
They could say. You cannot get your 2 billion dollars in Federal funding unless every single member of your community is unionized, unless you have a vice President of Diversity.
Unless you have queer studies, black studies, Latinx studies, disability studies. If you don't have the things that we want, then we are not giving you the 2 billion dollars. So you can see that when the pendulum swings back. This could be highly problematic. And so that's why we just want politics not to be a part. These cannot be strings attached. We should be doing research because we're trying to solve environmental. Help. Technological issues.
Leonie Haimson: So the effects have already been felt in terms of the impact on critical, scientific, and medical research. A top. Harvard scientist at the School of Public Health, who spent years studying tuberculosis, was ordered to stop working. Researchers may also have to kill macaques; a type of primate being used in vaccine studies.
Because at the same time, as all this is happening, we are also seeing. Huge attacks On science and medical research, with billions in cut to research made by NIH, NOAA, EPA, and other agencies by Elon Musk and his Doge minions. Combined with the Department of Education, threats to defund schools and universities.
It does recall, and I think you might have mentioned this earlier the Maoist cultural revolution, when many schools and colleges were actually closed for years. Thousands of teachers and professors lost their jobs, were murdered or made to work in the fields and attend re-education camps.
It also recalls the period in this US During the McCarthy period, when many professors and teachers lost their jobs because they couldn't or wouldn't sign loyalty, oaths. How do you compare this Threat to. Schools and higher. Ed. To these 2 examples, in the recent past?
Julian Vasquez Heilig : Yeah. So I wrote a blog about this and the Cultural revolution on my blog and. What I didn't say, when I wrote that blog comparing what's happening now to the cultural revolution. Is, that a Chinese scholar called me. That a colleague of mine and she told me. That this is what all of what's happening right now reminds her of the cultural evolution when she was growing up. And learning about in China.And that struck me, and what she told me was, she can't, She couldn't believe. That it was was happening here. And if you think about the long arc of history. And you know there, there are comparative examples in the 1940’s Also. There are moments when truth becomes dangerous.
When science becomes dangerous. When books are banned, when they're burned, when speech is punished When knowledge itself is seen. As a threat, because it's an alternative. To alternative facts. We are literally living in one of those moments right now.
And so what you see is a concerted attack. On institutions of Higher Education, on K12.And so. They, the current political administration, is emboldened.
And it's creating this panic. And it's targeting universities, not with. Dialogue about these issues, but with demands, with threats and a campaign of fear. That I hope, does not signal a new era in American education. One where compliance replaces courage and silence. And acquiescence is rewarded over scholarship and truth.
Leonie Haimson: I mean something that we can see from that period in Chinese history, too, is that it not only affected. You know Education, which, of course, is hugely important, but it's set back. The economy of China for 20 or 50 years.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : Mhm yeah.
Leonie Haimson: And I think that there is a lack of understanding By this administration and the forces that they represent, of how critical. These areas of learning, science, and research are to our economy as well.
There was a report put out that showed that in 2024 alone. The research Grants that were put out by the NIH generated 95 billion dollars in economic activity. And supported half a million jobs. And of course, you know, that's not just the only thing that we should be concerned about. We need to be concerned about the effects on the globe in terms of the environment. When you eliminate climate science, how are we going to even know how to predict the weather anymore, with the cuts to the weather bureau that's happening, and how that could. Essentially, you know, risk human lives. And it goes on and on and on. Um.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : Yeah.
Leonie Haimson: In in 2021, I mean, this could have sort of been predicted in a way. Um, though it's incredible to live through, because in JD. Vance, I don't know whether you've seen this speech that he gave in 2021. He said, that professors are the enemy.
That universities are indoctrination centers, and that the Federal Government should force them to get in line by threatening to cut their funding. And so this was in a sense he was predicting what would, what, what the Administration would now threaten to do.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : So, but Yeah. So again, trying to change the Overton window. Here's the acceptable Window, of Change, that that we are Aiming for right? So they're trying to change it. But Trump. And Vance, and: Is that JD Vance? Is that his. My understanding. He's changed his name several times.
Leonie Haimson: Yes, I think he's changed his name at least twice.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : But right. Yeah. So he's right. Now he's going by JD Vance, who knows what it'll be next year. But my, my point in this is that they went to Elite, Ivy League, Universities. And here they are. With bright beliefs from the right.
So they turned out. As far as these particular perspectives. Uh, our universities have right wing beliefs. They have left wing beliefs. We have people who are, you know, students and faculty, who are apolitical.
Right universities are the places where You go to exchange these ideas, it's about the marketplace of ideas. But what so what really concerns me is that we're entering this dark age of Knowledge and science. And so all the things that you talked about with Department of Education and the weather service, but also health and human services.
Dramatic Cuts. Coming to health and human services, dramatic cuts coming to the CDC Dramatic Cuts. Across the government. Across Research, National Science Foundation.
And so what I am afraid is happening. Is that we're entering a dark age for knowledge and science. Now The average pretty person sitting at home on their sofa or in their car, driving to work, listening to this, podcast they're looking around and they're saying to themselves, maybe. Well, none of this is really affecting me. It doesn't really affect.
The thing is that it's cumulative These effects. Come down the road. Now there are some things that are happening right away. Challenges that are happening with the Social Security Administration. Um all the sort of snafus that we're seeing with the FAA. There are some. Some issues that are coming to the fore right now.
But what's happening is that our challenges. We're marching towards them. They are delayed, they are deferred. And so I'm just really afraid of this dark age for knowledge and science, and what it'll mean for the average person and a human. American citizen, etc.
Leonie Haimson: Well, absolutely. I mean. One of the ways in which Trump, I think, has gotten as far as he has, is by spreading Untruths. And lies about what science has shown and what education has created. In terms of, you know the understanding of climate change and human health. And now the spreading of conspiracy, theories about autism, etc. All of this.is challenged by academia. Where we have independent experts. Who have done research. And can counter The messages of this administration.
So one of the reasons, I think, that education is being threatened so directly is because it is another source of knowledge that can counter the misinformation that this administration depends upon to be able to enact their policies.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : No, absolutely. Absolutely and even when it is apparent When. Republicans and Democrats agree That. A mistake has been made.
Or a wrong has been committed. And this the example of this is the imprisonment of Mr. Brego in El Salvador. There is no trophies. Policy Now, what do I mean by that. Admitting mistakes is a sign of weakness.
Leonie Haimson: Right.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : And so what happens is that you double down. On controversial positions, even when you're wrong Which undermines our historical checks on power. Because it requires people in the Justice Department, inspectors, generals, etc. To say. The government is wrong. On this we have to head a different direction. Instead, it's this constant mistruths about situations which leads us to instability. It leads us to fear.
And so we need the checks in our government. In our society to set us on a course where truth matters. Where justice matters.
Leonie Haimson: Right. And it explains also the attacks on the mainstream media, because that's another independent source of knowledge and truth. Which directly challenges the trump administration which wants the monopoly on that. And I think that that's another aspect of authoritarian governments is that they want the only to be the only ones who can proclaim what is real and what is not real.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : Mhm. That's right. And I think so. There's a whole set of media narratives by Newsmax , Fox news that Everything is written off. As this is simply the radical left. Which shifts conversations away from policy implications and the impacts on real people, and it reduces accountability and allows these sort of controversial and problematic policies to proceed with minimal opposition because you simply frame it as this is political. This is the radical left. I think the second piece of that is the control of new media social media. Right? So whether it is Elon Musk buying Twitter, or saying that he also wants to buy Tiktok.
Or the control of newspapers, and what will and can and cannot happen, because the owners of the newspapers won't allow. Particular perspectives to be out in the public discourse. Uh. And so that's a real challenge for us, too, is that media is being manipulated. And the thing is, it's being manipulated, not just.
Uh for people on the left, but it's being manipulated for people on the right. And because media has become so, segmented. People on the right. They don't hear the same conversations in media because of algorithms and people on the left. They don't hear the same conversations that the people on the right. And so you have 2 Americas hearing completely different messages.
Leonie Haimson: Right, and then, and in their own bubbles, as well. Which is one reason I've stayed on Twitter. I don't haven't moved to Blue Sky because I don't want to be in a separate bubble.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : Yes.
Leonie Haimson: I want to read what the other people are saying and directly respond to them. Whether it does any good or not. Who knows.
I asked you previously to predict What you thought about the court case with the Aclu. Um. And you mentioned that. After that. Subsequently you mentioned that you think the Government can't win against Harvard, because it's too wealthy and too established in terms of its influence. But if you had to make a prediction about where all this will go in the future, and whether you know academic freedom and science and truth will win out, or whether the uh. Trump administration will manage to stifle their voices as an independent source of knowledge as happened, I guess, in Hungary and some, and China during the Cultural revolution. What would be your prediction?
Julian Vasquez Heilig : So we started on this course a Few years ago, when the Supreme Court decided that. The President couldn't commit any crimes in the course of their official duties. Now, of course, what does that mean? Exactly And so. I think The Supreme Court's worst nightmare. In my opinion. Was realized That. Through executive action.There were. There has been many, many unconstitutional actions put into place. By the by, the Executive Now. The.
Legislative branch. I don't know if you saw Murkowski recently, commented. That the senators are fearful Of Donald Trump. Fearful was the word.
Leonie Haimson: Yeah, of retaliation.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : My understanding that Yeah, fearful. So we can't. We can't depend on the legislative branch. To push back At least until the midterms. So basically, it's up to the judicial branch. And so I I think there's 2. There's 2 people you have to look at. It's Amy Coney Barrett. And the Chief Justice, John Roberts. And watching how they've dealt with other trump cases. Now, my lawyer friends disagree with what I'm about to say. They are not confident:
But. I feel Looking at the tea leaves. That those 2 justices will provide a lot of pushback, as these cases head to the Supreme Court. Now My attorney friends don't believe that now, and that's across the spectrum. Whether it is the Birthright citizenship, whether it is. The Harvard cases, NAACP Cases, because the question is, does the judiciary want to remain. Relevant. Do they want the separation of powers in the Constitution To still be a thing.
Because if they allow Trump via executive order to rule the country via Fiat. Then essentially the executive. Branch now will dominate the judicial and the legislative branch.
Now our country's pretty young. And so this is the 1st time That it's been tested in this way. I believe. And maybe this is too rosy of a perspective. I believe that the majority of the attempts to rule by fiat through. Executive Orders. Will ultimately be ruled. Unconstitutional.
Leonie Haimson: Well, let's hope you're right. There's also the question of whether Trump will obey even a requirement, or a demand or a ruling by the Supreme Court.
But thank you so much, Julian Vasquez Heilig, for being with us on Talk out of School, and talking about the threats To K12, higher Ed and knowledge and science itself by the Trump administration, and we hope that this is not the beginning of a new Dark Ages, or the 1st Dark Ages for our country, essentially, but that we will come out of this with a stronger, independent education system. Thank you so much.
Julian Vasquez Heilig : Thank you for having me.
Leonie Haimson; This is Leonie Haimson, host of Talk out of School, on WBAI 99.5 FM Pacifica radio. Our show is available as a podcast if you missed the live version or want to recommend it to a friend. You can find it at Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Also please consider becoming a member of WBAI or a special supporter of this show, Talk out of School, by donating at wbai.org. There’s no other show on the air that delves into the many issues and controversies affecting NYC public schools and nationally like this one.
We will be back soon with another episode of Talk out of School. Thanks so much for listening.