Reports of the Trump administration’s approach to colleges and universities are raising concerns across a wide spectrum of opinions, most of which deal with civil rights violations and freedom of speech issues.

For the more liberal among us, the administration’s use of coercive state power to enforce its vision of what institutions of higher education should be doing is alarming. For the more conservative among us, the uses of coercive state power is warranted to correct policies that have allowed for the suppression of speech and permitted the development of campus environments that are threatening to some students.

As a retired professor, I am sympathetic to both perspectives. But, I am also alarmed at the development of a more fundamental issue about the role of private universities in society and their relationships to government. The current travails of Columbia University are especially illustrative of my fears.

The entire American political tradition has been based on the idea of checks and balances in order to limit the exercise of political power by the state. Those notions are enshrined in the Constitution, of course, but they are realized in society by the recognition of private spheres of life — private enterprise, a politically independent press, nongovernmental unions, private religious institutions, free and private associations and, yes, private colleges and universities.

The boundaries between the private and the public have been contested throughout our history, but the legitimacy of the existence of a “civil society” of private institutions has rarely been questioned. This is in contrast to a variety of other political systems which suppress civil society (with communist countries being the most extreme example), or where state power is far less checked than in the U.S. The combination of a robust private sphere interacting with a capable, democratically elected government is by all accounts the key to the wealth and power we enjoy as a nation.

The Trump administration’s efforts to discipline Columbia by withholding federal funds allocated for its operations, and making intrusive demands on its governance, strikes a blow at this balance of the public and the private spheres. The aggressive hectoring of the presidents of three private universities by the House Education Committee was a prelude to the attacks on Columbia. There is certainly a public interest in ensuring that university environments protect free speech are not threatening to students and faculty, but the assertion of such interests can be made without casting doubt on the legitimacy and independence of universities.

The plight of Columbia at the hands of government, and threats to civil society more generally, brings to mind the famous remarks of German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemoller, reflecting on his culpability for not opposing the rise of Nazism and his subsequent arrest by the Nazis.

“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.”

As a nation, we must become more vigilant that “socialists” is not replaced by “universities,” that “trade unionists” is not replaced by “journalists,” and that “Jews” is not replaced by “private companies” and “private associations.” Recalling that revolutions often “consume their own,” MAGA partisans should also reflect on Niemoller’s experience.

——

Richard Suttmeier lives in Keene Valley.